Hi all,
Though it is exciting to watch the old year turn into the new year, it is less than exciting to watch what’s on tv these days (even on cable). And with the debut of the second season of “True Blood” being months and months away, the box in the front of the room has returned to being a conversation piece. However, there is one show on tv now (every Tues at 10 pm on TNT) that is really amazing. Called “Leverage” it’s described on its website as thieves who act as modern day “Robin Hood” types. The group of thieves ‘steal’ (though in today‘s world, bankrupting through losing stock options is an interesting twist) from the rich (ones that have committed despicable acts) and give to the poor (people who have been wronged by the rich people). The show, “Leverage” has been called another “Ocean’s 13” by, I think, Entertainment Weekly but in my opinion, that’s not quite enough to describe this cool, smart, innovative new show.
The team of thieves is led by former insurance investigator Nate Ford (Timothy Hutton) who is wrestling with some really powerful inner demons. It seems that his old insurance company boss denied Ford’s insurance claim, allowing his son to die. So, Ford turns from good guy to bad to help people he sees as being like himself, I e. having been hurt in some way by big, powerful men/corporations. With a cool team of experts, Parker (Beth Riesgraf), a daredevil thief (don’t miss seeing her ‘early years’ which shows up briefly in one episode flashback), Alec Hardison (Aldis Hodge ) a computer ’geek’ who can not only understand Klingon but also says that ‘when people’s rolodexes were put on satellite, a whole ’nother playground opened up for him‘, Eliot Spencer (Christian Kane ), the old Wolfram and Hart attorney from Angel who still plays it cool (and supernatural at times) as the main fighter for the group and Sophie Devereaux (Gina Bellman), who can act well only when she’s stealing. So, yes, the cast is impressive. Great actors playing interesting roles with depth to each and every character. Though the characters are on the ‘other’ side of the law, I found myself as a viewer always rooting for the bad guys and sometimes even forgetting that yes, they’re breaking the law.
With some great flashback sequences at the end of each show (to show how some switches went down to orchestrate the entire con), a healthy heaping of witty banter and just a built in ‘smartness’ to each episode plot, the show feels almost Whedonesque at times. I began watching “Leverage” as an on demand feature a couple of weeks ago (after it was advertised during another good show “The Librarian” (hey, does he work at the same university as Indiana Jones?) but now, I am looking forward to watching “Leverage” each week for a new interesting and compelling episode. The only thing missing from “Leverage” are vampires (there are some supernatural ‘elements’ to the show, for example, how Kane can fight bad guys with blazing speed but I guess nothing is perfect. OK, remind me again how many days there are until season 2 of “True Blood” starts?
Take care and have a great new year all,
Christine Prebler
PS--Two more things. First, I do hope that “Leverage” gets renewed for a second season. It is smart, funny and cool. I’m hooked. Second, one last interesting fact. Timothy Hutton’s character once studied for the priesthood. This opens up all kinds of issues dealing with religious themes. One show was even about helping a Catholic priest. I won’t talk about the entire episode just in case you haven’t seen it, but the end has a really ‘catholic feeling’ wrapup. Great show. Good stuff. More, please!
Thursday, January 1, 2009
Monday, December 29, 2008
“Three vampire books to buy before 2008 ends………..”
1. Bram Stoker’s Notes for Dracula: A Facsimile Edition (Robert Eighteen-Bisang and Elizabeth Miller)---wonderful to be able to read Stoker’s notes in his original writing. What’s even more fun is to be able to look at single words/phrases and try to decipher them( Stoker’s handwriting seems rushed and is illegible at times and there are still debates about certain words/phrases). But as a big fan of his work, just visually seeing his writing gave me a special thrill.
2. “The New Annotated Dracula (Leslie S. Klinger with introduction by Neil Gaiman). Klinger just published “The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes” and if the Dracula one is anything to compare it by, they both must be wonderful. Klinger knows his subject matter thoroughly and examines the text fully and completely. It’s going on my reference shelf! Several authors have published the novel with their notes (interestingly Wolf analyzed and published analyses of both Phantom and Dracula but I digress…) but if you’re deciding which to purchase, Klinger’s is among my top favs.
3. “Vampire Wine and Roses: Chilling Tales of Immortal Pleasure” edited by John Richard Stephens. Yes, yes, I know, there are many good compilations of vampire stories. However, this one has some really, really good stories with some stories I haven’t seen in print for a very long time. From Anne Rice to Sting to Voltaire to Stephen King, this is another ‘must have’ for the vampire aficionado’s book shelf.
Take care all,
Christine Prebler
2. “The New Annotated Dracula (Leslie S. Klinger with introduction by Neil Gaiman). Klinger just published “The New Annotated Sherlock Holmes” and if the Dracula one is anything to compare it by, they both must be wonderful. Klinger knows his subject matter thoroughly and examines the text fully and completely. It’s going on my reference shelf! Several authors have published the novel with their notes (interestingly Wolf analyzed and published analyses of both Phantom and Dracula but I digress…) but if you’re deciding which to purchase, Klinger’s is among my top favs.
3. “Vampire Wine and Roses: Chilling Tales of Immortal Pleasure” edited by John Richard Stephens. Yes, yes, I know, there are many good compilations of vampire stories. However, this one has some really, really good stories with some stories I haven’t seen in print for a very long time. From Anne Rice to Sting to Voltaire to Stephen King, this is another ‘must have’ for the vampire aficionado’s book shelf.
Take care all,
Christine Prebler
Sunday, December 14, 2008
“The ‘other’ vampire movie” (Let the Right one in--book review)
Hi all,
Unfortunately, the town I live in does not have a movie theater close by that shows independent movies.
I really wanted to see “Let the right one in” because I’ve heard so much about it. Instead of making a long trip to the nearest big city, I did the next best thing. I bought the book. Written by Swedish writer, John Ajvide Lindqvist and translated by Ebba Segerberg , the writing style was strongly reminiscent of Stephen King ( though King wrote Salem‘s Lot“, the book is not reminiscent of this but rather King‘s use of a young boy (and even, girl) narrator in his many books and stories). Yeah, these are not your rich, dapper vamps. Instead, they’re a little closer to the “30 days of Night” version (have a death smell, cannot control their appetite , must kill each time they feed and morph into something less than human when they change). Except for Eli, the young teen vampire who, through her friendship with a human boy, remembers what it’s like to be human and longs for this mortal life.
Eli moves next to a preteen boy named Oskar who lives in a Stockholm suburb. He gets picked on by bullies at school and daydreams of becoming a mass murderer so he get revenge on them. Yeah, it’s not your run of the mill YA book (I don’t think it was written for teens) but for us adults, “Let..” is an excellent novel. Oskar meets Eli who smells odd and wears the same clothes night after night. He bangs on the wall next to his to ‘talk’ with her when she cannot come out. Oskar and Eli form a tenuous friendship where each one sees something that is attractive in the other. Eli sees her lost human childhood in Oskar while Oskar is drawn to the darkness in her that he has in himself.
The book deals with some heavier subject matter (pedophilia, murder, etc) but also raises some issues with regard to childhood, friendship and love. In Lindqvist’s vampire lore, once someone gets infected, ‘brain like’ cells grow next to someone’s heart and becomes their second brain. Therefore, the person ‘changes’ once they become a vampire and cannot be the same person they were beforehand. Even though the book was dark and disturbing (as was the ending), I do highly rec it for vampire fiction readers. Like many vampire novels “Let..” deals with love and the ability of the undead to love. Unlike most of the vampire novels today, it deals with the darker aspects of love and longing and wanting. And for that alone, it should be read.
Happy Holidays!
Christine Prebler
PS---Some cool stuff being released in Jan (Moonlight and The Tudors, Part II on DVD). And Springsteen's new album in Feb. I can't wait:)
PPS--I was watching the TNT series "The Librarian" (Judas chalice one, yes, and I think that the librarian Indiana Jones idea works well) when I saw an add for Tim Hutton's new program "Leverage". Did anyone catch Christian Kane on the show? He played the young, evil lawyer, Lindsey, at Wolfram and Hart on "Angel"
Unfortunately, the town I live in does not have a movie theater close by that shows independent movies.
I really wanted to see “Let the right one in” because I’ve heard so much about it. Instead of making a long trip to the nearest big city, I did the next best thing. I bought the book. Written by Swedish writer, John Ajvide Lindqvist and translated by Ebba Segerberg , the writing style was strongly reminiscent of Stephen King ( though King wrote Salem‘s Lot“, the book is not reminiscent of this but rather King‘s use of a young boy (and even, girl) narrator in his many books and stories). Yeah, these are not your rich, dapper vamps. Instead, they’re a little closer to the “30 days of Night” version (have a death smell, cannot control their appetite , must kill each time they feed and morph into something less than human when they change). Except for Eli, the young teen vampire who, through her friendship with a human boy, remembers what it’s like to be human and longs for this mortal life.
Eli moves next to a preteen boy named Oskar who lives in a Stockholm suburb. He gets picked on by bullies at school and daydreams of becoming a mass murderer so he get revenge on them. Yeah, it’s not your run of the mill YA book (I don’t think it was written for teens) but for us adults, “Let..” is an excellent novel. Oskar meets Eli who smells odd and wears the same clothes night after night. He bangs on the wall next to his to ‘talk’ with her when she cannot come out. Oskar and Eli form a tenuous friendship where each one sees something that is attractive in the other. Eli sees her lost human childhood in Oskar while Oskar is drawn to the darkness in her that he has in himself.
The book deals with some heavier subject matter (pedophilia, murder, etc) but also raises some issues with regard to childhood, friendship and love. In Lindqvist’s vampire lore, once someone gets infected, ‘brain like’ cells grow next to someone’s heart and becomes their second brain. Therefore, the person ‘changes’ once they become a vampire and cannot be the same person they were beforehand. Even though the book was dark and disturbing (as was the ending), I do highly rec it for vampire fiction readers. Like many vampire novels “Let..” deals with love and the ability of the undead to love. Unlike most of the vampire novels today, it deals with the darker aspects of love and longing and wanting. And for that alone, it should be read.
Happy Holidays!
Christine Prebler
PS---Some cool stuff being released in Jan (Moonlight and The Tudors, Part II on DVD). And Springsteen's new album in Feb. I can't wait:)
PPS--I was watching the TNT series "The Librarian" (Judas chalice one, yes, and I think that the librarian Indiana Jones idea works well) when I saw an add for Tim Hutton's new program "Leverage". Did anyone catch Christian Kane on the show? He played the young, evil lawyer, Lindsey, at Wolfram and Hart on "Angel"
Tuesday, December 2, 2008
“The kids are all right” (review of the movie, Twilight, with spoilers)
Remember that small four book series (and maybe more) called “Twilight”? The one with such a fourth controversial book that fans are still debating its merits (or lack thereof) four months after its official release? Well, if you have been living in our solar system this past year, you know that there is not only a book series but also a movie based on the first book of the same name, “Twilight” that was recently released to theaters across the country.
First though. About the books. The Twilight vampire series, written by Stephanie Meyers was a very romantic series about a young teenage girl (Bella) who moves to Forks, Washington to start a new life with her father (mother and father are divorced). Trying to connect with her police chief father (they hadn’t seen each other for some time and he was distant), Bella falls headlong into the new high school scene, feeling very strange and alone. There are others that feel the same way as she does, however, they aren’t alive. Known as the ‘Cullens‘, the other students think that this family of ‘adopted’ brothers and sisters are odd. Oh, if they only knew how different. Yep, they’re a ‘family’ of vampires. Pieced together from those that he loved (wife, Esme Cullen) and the people that he ‘saved’ from dying (turned into vampires) (Edward Cullen, vampire whom Bella falls in love with almost died from Spanish Influenza), Dr. Carlisle Cullen has sworn off killing humans for their blood and is trying to live with his family quietly in Forks. Wash. Why the vampires want to relive high school and not college again and again (I’d prefer collage and grad school), was always a bit confusing for me but it is a young adult series and the concept (vampires in high school)works well for bringing the undead (and their issues) to the teenagers of today.
With vampires and a “Romeo and Juliette” theme, Meyers’ books touched a deep chord with core audience made up of both teenage girls and people in general who enjoy reading romance fiction. At her best, Meyers writes wonderful romantic passages. And while there is very little sex mentioned (until the fourth book), the passion between the two characters, Bella and Edward is intense and deep and highly sensual. Meyers was (and is, she’s writing about aliens taking over people's bodies (some interesting implications about souls and things) book one is called “The Host”) one of the most original voices I’ve read in a long time. I don’t always agree with her philosophies but then, I enjoy reading authors I both agree and disagree with. Authors who do not share my opinions are often those I choose to read. Their take on ‘issues’ make me think about why I believe such and such. And as both a reader and as a writer, I think those books (and movies) that make you think are a very good thing.
OK, what did I forget? Oh, yeah, the actual movie. Though I confess I read the book a while ago, I did really greatly enjoy Meyers first book, “Twilight” and came away from the book with an impression of not only liking it but of being eager to read the next book in the series. I had heard mixed reviews of the actual movie and so, I went to see it with some measure of trepidation. Because when vampire movies are good, they’re very good. But when they’re bad, they’re…. yeah, very bad. I have to say, though I was well over the average age of the teen audience, I think I really enjoyed it as much as they did.
In the movie, Bella leaves her home since her mother married a minor league baseball player and now wants to travel with him on the road. I’m getting old and my memory of the books are fuzzy but I’m not certain if this was the original setup for why Bella leaves her mother’s house. But, as a plot device, it works. And works well. So, Bella moves from Phoenix, Arizona to be with her police chief father in Forks, Washington. The movie starts out with a nice detail of Bella saving something (a small, delicate cactus plant) from her mother’s place. And really, that’s what’s good about the movie. It’s ‘heart’ is in the right place. I really enjoyed the young actress who played Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart). Under the direction of Catherine Hardwicke (good at showing teenage world, director of “Thirteen”), I think that Stewart gave a well rounded, multi-layered performance, showing both a young woman can be both outwardly clumsy and unsure but yet, shows steely determination underneath when she finds the one she loves and wants to stay with him, no matter the great hurdles that they may face.
I read somewhere that the Twilight movie was not made with a large budget and so, the vampires’ makeup, particularly Robert Pattinson’s as Edward is a little too jarring and tends to distract from the action at hand. There are a few awkward moments of dialogue as well but overall, these are very minor and did not detract from my enjoyment of the movie. The really good parts? Edward roaring in (love to see movies where they underscore vampires’ great driving skills. Hey, vampires should be great drivers. Enormously fast reflexes and been driving a very looong time)just in the nick of time to save Bella from certain violence in his silver Volvo (was interesting to see that they did not replace it with a BMW. Huff’s vampire, Henry in her books has one as well as Bill in “True Blood”. You know, there should be an ad that says “Official car of the undead” but I digress…).
I also enjoyed the fight scene at the end (Meyers’ vampires have no fangs but they do move fast and jump around so they are scary and are reminiscent of werewolves in another teen movie that I enjoyed “Blood and Chocolate”) as well as the end of the movie where Bella ends up, body bruised but still physically able to dance in her prom dress with her vampire lover, Edward (a very Anita Blakish moment). I just wanted to mention that besides the main movie characters (thought the actors portraying the Cullens as well as the evil vampires did a nice believable job), I really thought the actor playing Bella’s father (Billy Burke) was both touching and rough in all the right places. The actor made the character who had the difficult job of becoming a parent almost overnight to a teenage girl whom he had not seen in years and found the relationship difficult to relate to (didn‘t want to drive daughter ‘away‘ from him like he did the mother), very heartfelt and endearing.
In summary, then, I’d give the movie 4 out of five stars and would recommend it to my friends and readers. Even though things and situations were changed in the movie, overall, everything worked and I think that all involved captured the magic of the first Meyer’s book that made the readers (including me) enjoyed in it. The movie, like the book, is extremely romantic, and I think, will fulfill expectations of romantics everywhere (even if you watch the movie first). In fact, watching the movie, made me want to go back to read the books to see what was changed for plotting purposes and what was not.
The title of this blog is called “The kids are all right” meaning that seeing the younger generation’s movies (Twilight and “Blood and Chocolate (older book, adaption of movie is new”), I’m excited about the future of both horror films in general and vampire movies in particular. As I’ve said earlier in this review, “Blood and Chocolate” was a great werewolf movie, bringing depth and sexiness to a supernatural being that had only previously been given to vampires. I really enjoyed "Twilight and will be buying the movie on DVD when it is released. Now, bring on “New Moon”! I’ll be waiting with my popcorn. And with my bottle of “True Blood”. Oh, wait that’s another…..
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Is anyone watching “Sons of Anarchy?” In my opinion, it’s one of the new series with the most compelling writing and characters I’ve seen. If you want the connection to vampires, the executive producer is James Parriott. Ring any bells? Yep, he was responsible for the development of the wonderful vampire series “Forever Knight”.
I began watching “Sons” because I’m a Ron Perlman fan (Beauty and the Beast, Hellboy) but the stories are excellent and his wife, played by the talented actress, Katey Sagal (husband Kurt Sutter developed series as well as series “The Shield” of which I heard other good things but did not watch it) is a looong way from being Peggy Bundy (“Married with Children”). But, much like Forever Knight did, SOA tells the story of a young man trapped in a group he would like to leave. With an evil ‘father’ figure and two love interests (one in and one out of the motorcycle gang), it reminds me a lot of Forever Knight. The stories are hard hitting, the characters intriguing. You go away from each episode thinking about the issues. Yep, great all around. I can’t wait for the next season. The episodes are on “On Demand” on your cable right now. Go and watch. You won’t be disappointed. I promise.
First though. About the books. The Twilight vampire series, written by Stephanie Meyers was a very romantic series about a young teenage girl (Bella) who moves to Forks, Washington to start a new life with her father (mother and father are divorced). Trying to connect with her police chief father (they hadn’t seen each other for some time and he was distant), Bella falls headlong into the new high school scene, feeling very strange and alone. There are others that feel the same way as she does, however, they aren’t alive. Known as the ‘Cullens‘, the other students think that this family of ‘adopted’ brothers and sisters are odd. Oh, if they only knew how different. Yep, they’re a ‘family’ of vampires. Pieced together from those that he loved (wife, Esme Cullen) and the people that he ‘saved’ from dying (turned into vampires) (Edward Cullen, vampire whom Bella falls in love with almost died from Spanish Influenza), Dr. Carlisle Cullen has sworn off killing humans for their blood and is trying to live with his family quietly in Forks. Wash. Why the vampires want to relive high school and not college again and again (I’d prefer collage and grad school), was always a bit confusing for me but it is a young adult series and the concept (vampires in high school)works well for bringing the undead (and their issues) to the teenagers of today.
With vampires and a “Romeo and Juliette” theme, Meyers’ books touched a deep chord with core audience made up of both teenage girls and people in general who enjoy reading romance fiction. At her best, Meyers writes wonderful romantic passages. And while there is very little sex mentioned (until the fourth book), the passion between the two characters, Bella and Edward is intense and deep and highly sensual. Meyers was (and is, she’s writing about aliens taking over people's bodies (some interesting implications about souls and things) book one is called “The Host”) one of the most original voices I’ve read in a long time. I don’t always agree with her philosophies but then, I enjoy reading authors I both agree and disagree with. Authors who do not share my opinions are often those I choose to read. Their take on ‘issues’ make me think about why I believe such and such. And as both a reader and as a writer, I think those books (and movies) that make you think are a very good thing.
OK, what did I forget? Oh, yeah, the actual movie. Though I confess I read the book a while ago, I did really greatly enjoy Meyers first book, “Twilight” and came away from the book with an impression of not only liking it but of being eager to read the next book in the series. I had heard mixed reviews of the actual movie and so, I went to see it with some measure of trepidation. Because when vampire movies are good, they’re very good. But when they’re bad, they’re…. yeah, very bad. I have to say, though I was well over the average age of the teen audience, I think I really enjoyed it as much as they did.
In the movie, Bella leaves her home since her mother married a minor league baseball player and now wants to travel with him on the road. I’m getting old and my memory of the books are fuzzy but I’m not certain if this was the original setup for why Bella leaves her mother’s house. But, as a plot device, it works. And works well. So, Bella moves from Phoenix, Arizona to be with her police chief father in Forks, Washington. The movie starts out with a nice detail of Bella saving something (a small, delicate cactus plant) from her mother’s place. And really, that’s what’s good about the movie. It’s ‘heart’ is in the right place. I really enjoyed the young actress who played Bella Swan (Kristen Stewart). Under the direction of Catherine Hardwicke (good at showing teenage world, director of “Thirteen”), I think that Stewart gave a well rounded, multi-layered performance, showing both a young woman can be both outwardly clumsy and unsure but yet, shows steely determination underneath when she finds the one she loves and wants to stay with him, no matter the great hurdles that they may face.
I read somewhere that the Twilight movie was not made with a large budget and so, the vampires’ makeup, particularly Robert Pattinson’s as Edward is a little too jarring and tends to distract from the action at hand. There are a few awkward moments of dialogue as well but overall, these are very minor and did not detract from my enjoyment of the movie. The really good parts? Edward roaring in (love to see movies where they underscore vampires’ great driving skills. Hey, vampires should be great drivers. Enormously fast reflexes and been driving a very looong time)just in the nick of time to save Bella from certain violence in his silver Volvo (was interesting to see that they did not replace it with a BMW. Huff’s vampire, Henry in her books has one as well as Bill in “True Blood”. You know, there should be an ad that says “Official car of the undead” but I digress…).
I also enjoyed the fight scene at the end (Meyers’ vampires have no fangs but they do move fast and jump around so they are scary and are reminiscent of werewolves in another teen movie that I enjoyed “Blood and Chocolate”) as well as the end of the movie where Bella ends up, body bruised but still physically able to dance in her prom dress with her vampire lover, Edward (a very Anita Blakish moment). I just wanted to mention that besides the main movie characters (thought the actors portraying the Cullens as well as the evil vampires did a nice believable job), I really thought the actor playing Bella’s father (Billy Burke) was both touching and rough in all the right places. The actor made the character who had the difficult job of becoming a parent almost overnight to a teenage girl whom he had not seen in years and found the relationship difficult to relate to (didn‘t want to drive daughter ‘away‘ from him like he did the mother), very heartfelt and endearing.
In summary, then, I’d give the movie 4 out of five stars and would recommend it to my friends and readers. Even though things and situations were changed in the movie, overall, everything worked and I think that all involved captured the magic of the first Meyer’s book that made the readers (including me) enjoyed in it. The movie, like the book, is extremely romantic, and I think, will fulfill expectations of romantics everywhere (even if you watch the movie first). In fact, watching the movie, made me want to go back to read the books to see what was changed for plotting purposes and what was not.
The title of this blog is called “The kids are all right” meaning that seeing the younger generation’s movies (Twilight and “Blood and Chocolate (older book, adaption of movie is new”), I’m excited about the future of both horror films in general and vampire movies in particular. As I’ve said earlier in this review, “Blood and Chocolate” was a great werewolf movie, bringing depth and sexiness to a supernatural being that had only previously been given to vampires. I really enjoyed "Twilight and will be buying the movie on DVD when it is released. Now, bring on “New Moon”! I’ll be waiting with my popcorn. And with my bottle of “True Blood”. Oh, wait that’s another…..
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Is anyone watching “Sons of Anarchy?” In my opinion, it’s one of the new series with the most compelling writing and characters I’ve seen. If you want the connection to vampires, the executive producer is James Parriott. Ring any bells? Yep, he was responsible for the development of the wonderful vampire series “Forever Knight”.
I began watching “Sons” because I’m a Ron Perlman fan (Beauty and the Beast, Hellboy) but the stories are excellent and his wife, played by the talented actress, Katey Sagal (husband Kurt Sutter developed series as well as series “The Shield” of which I heard other good things but did not watch it) is a looong way from being Peggy Bundy (“Married with Children”). But, much like Forever Knight did, SOA tells the story of a young man trapped in a group he would like to leave. With an evil ‘father’ figure and two love interests (one in and one out of the motorcycle gang), it reminds me a lot of Forever Knight. The stories are hard hitting, the characters intriguing. You go away from each episode thinking about the issues. Yep, great all around. I can’t wait for the next season. The episodes are on “On Demand” on your cable right now. Go and watch. You won’t be disappointed. I promise.
Sunday, August 24, 2008
Fangs this Fall (True Blood Series on HBO)
Hi all,
Yep, summer’s almost over and autumn’s just around the corner. And while I’m not a regular tv watcher (I’m either writing or reading or on the net), I am excited this year because, once again, there’s another vampire series in the lineup. Called “True Blood”, it’s based on Charlaine Harris’ “Dead” series and stars Anna Paquin (yes, the little girl from the movie, The Piano for all us old-timers out there. As an aside, I’d love to see Sam Neill portray a vampire character someday in a movie or tv series but I digress.)
Anyway, I’ve been watching the sneak previews on HBO called “Blood Copy” (think they’re up to 11 episodes now) and they’ve been both funny (‘friends don’t let friends eat friends‘) and thought provoking (‘God hates fangs’) . I’ve seen a short ‘making of’ the series as well and so far, things look good. I even like the folksy character of Bill, the Civil War veteran (looks pretty average until he shows his fangs) since he’s described as such in the Harris’ books. There also seems to be a bit of “Buffy’ mixed into the flavor of the show, particularly when Sookie (Paquin) answers “I’m just a waitress” to the question of “what are you?” I also think I caught a flash in the program of master vamp, Eric, who looks like a head vamp should.
I must confess though, I go into every vampire show now with a measure of tempered excitement. You see, I’ve lived through many, many good vampire shows and their subsequent cancellations. Here is a list of the following vampire shows that I’ve watched (and liked, and were cancelled).
1. Cliffhanger Series (Michael Nouri played Dracula who ‘moonlighted’ as a college prof). I remember watching that series and liking the idea of a more ‘moral’ vampire. Bringing in the mother of the girl in love with Dracula as a vampire added an interesting touch as well. Though the vampires couldn’t help but to kill their victims for their blood, it was one of the first series that suggested that there might be something to want to live/become undead for.
2. Dark Shadows--I’ve seen much of the original black and white episodes and though Frid did a wonderful job, most of my memories of the show center around the ‘91 remake with Ben Cross. I confess, I was a big Cross fan back in the day (he did a small budget vampire movie called “Nightlife” in addition to doing the tv series “Far Pavilions”. MM Kaye is a wonderful writer and I rec “Far Pavilions” and “Shadow of the Moon” most highly). In my opinion, Cross did a fine Barnabas Collins opposite a sexy Joanna Going but unfortunately, unlike the original which ran for five years and 1225 episodes, the revival only ran 13 episodes. Perhaps the original had too big of faings to follow but in any case, this vampire series got the ax (or the stake, whichever you prefer).
3. The Kindred---Based on the novels, this series was another good one, I thought, but again, was short lived. I liked the bar owning vampire, Lily Langtree as well as the ‘prince of the city’, Julian Luna. It’s sad the actor (Mark Frankel) portraying the sexy vampire was killed in a motorcycle accident soon after the series was cancelled. There were many interesting things about the series (vampires were grouped into different ‘clans’ which explained the differences among the literary vampires). For example, Luna belonged to the business class of vampires called the Ventrue while the rat like vampires belonged to the Nosferatu clan. Each of the clans had a leader who sat in on meetings about vampire business and ‘voted’ for their interests. The analogy of this series of vampires being akin to the Mafia was another interesting idea and again, I wished that there were more episodes.
4. Dracula, the Series. This was a quirky vampire series done primarily for kids on Saturday mornings. Geordie Johnson did a nice job of portraying a very three dimensional Dracula character and Geraint Wyn Davies who was to play vampire Nick on FK was, in this show, the son of the main vampire hunter turned vampire on the show. Davies did a rather lighthearted job of the role and at times, in the beginning of FK, it was hard to see this actor as the very serious Nick. But Davies is a great actor and it didn't take me long to be convinced.
5. Forever Knight--started out as Crimetime after Primetime. Gained a huge following that probably became one of the first fans to translate their love of the series to the net. Great show. If you only want to watch one vampire show, this is the one to see in my opinion. The writers went through many of the issues surrounding vampire lore (religion (don't get me started on the vampires not being able to get into heaven unless they are human episode), suicide, love, loss, etc. I was a big Lacroix fan (PN Elrod, a wonderful writer of another great vampire series wrote two books with the actor who portrayed Lacroix, Nigel Bennett, though the books were not based on the immoral vampire character but a rather, more noble one). Liked the books and rec them highly as well:)
Though I didn't agree with much of the philosophy and wanted to throw a shoe at the tv sometime during each episode, this was the first vampire show that made me want to think more about the issues. And therefore, that's smart tv:)
6. Buffy and 7.Angel. Two of the most successful vampire series. There was much I enjoyed about the series (Spike for one) but I thought that vampires being possessed by demons (when humans ‘lost’ their soul, they gained a demon and were immortal) was a limiting factor when the concept of ‘moral vampires’ was introduced in the series. In any case, it ran for quite some time and provided me a good reason to not only watch tv every week but also, to buy a larger one as well (and a better VCR).
8. Port Charles---I think I was between jobs at the time and ended up watching some daytime tv. And lo and behold, there were vampires on tv. Was great to watch Caleb and Livy negotiate vampire love and desire. Since this was a soap opera, there were many sexy scenes though it wasn’t all fluff. Now and again, there were some questions about morality and vampires that Caleb (Michael Easton) had to deal with. And somehow, men always look sexier wearing fangs:)
9. Ultraviolet--I’m a huge Philip Quast fan (I so wish I could have seen him portray “Juan Peron” in “Evita’) and bought this series solely because he was in it. It was a British series and Quast played a Catholic priest who is dying of cancer. Needless to say, he has some issues to wrestle with as he runs an organization that is trying to find out what the vampires want from us humans these days. It’s a very complex series and presents the watcher with many issues to sort though. Just when you’re ‘sold’ on what the humans have to say about the vamps, a vampire character is introduced and turns it all on its head. Wonderful series, amazing acting. Again, very sad that it was also so short.
10. And 11.Moonlight and Blood Ties---These were two recent series which didn’t last very long either. I really liked Kyle Schmid as Henry (is an amazing actor. I couldn’t believe that he was so young because he had imbued the character with the ‘old soul’, been there, done that qualities which I don’t really see in many young actors/actresses these days. However, what was good was that Schmid kept just enough ‘youth’ in the character, actor was really in his 20s, so that every now and then, one could see a trace of the teenager that the mortal Henry must have been like before his conversion to immortality all those years ago. Blood Ties was on Lifetime, didn’t have that big of a budget and fans were unhappy with a number of things, including the fake looking monsters, the lack of street kid Tony and the never resolved (even a little) tensions between Mike, Vicki and Henry. In one story, Henry listened to Vicki when she thought he wouldn’t and as a reward, she allowed him to feed from her when they were in an elevator. Sexiest scene in the series. Too bad there weren’t more of them.
Moonlight had good characters too (liked Beth, Mick and Josef) and some in jokes (there was a “Lost Boys’ reference in there one week) but the story arc seemed uneven and the death of Beth’s human boyfriend was sudden and very shocking. Though the viewer understood that the human boyfriend was there to fill the ‘other guy’ role, the actor playing Josh did a very nice job and I really came to feel sympathy for him when he realized Beth was in love with Mick. I don’t remember if the writers knew that the series was being cancelled before killing off the human boyfriend but things after that seemed disjointed at best (would have been more interesting in this writer’s opinion if mortal was made immortal). At least, however, the last episode had a somewhat satisfying wrap up.
Am I done? This is all the series I can think of at the moment. But lately, it has been tough for some Sci-Fi series, even ones that did not center on vampires. The Dresden Files was cancelled which I thought was sad. I particularly liked Mann, (another actor who portrayed Javert in addition to Quast) as a ghost.
After looking at all these failed series, one has to wonder, “Is there hope for “True Blood”? I hope so but when making a vampire series one has to watch out for a couple of things. The characters must be adapted from page to screen, not necessarily rigidly so but imbued with enough of the traits to make those of us who’ve read the series to go “OK, that’s how I imaged he/she would look/act”. And how much of the character traits/quirks should the writers keep? It’s always tough to figure out what will translate well from the page to the screen but while I’m certain that the writers for “Blood Ties” thought it was a small thing, I know I was not the only one disappointed to see Henry driving a Jag instead of his trusted BMW.
So, OK, you got the characters and you think you’ve got them looking and acting like they did in the novels. But then, comes the hardest part, the story lines. Keeping them interesting and insightful to BOTH vampire and non vampire fans alike can be the biggest challenge. I know some people who watched “Forever Knight” and were bored with the show but I always enjoyed it for the issues they raised. For example, the vampire suicide episode (vampire actor/playwright decides she’s lived too long and commits suicide by burning in the sun) was a ‘quiet’ episode but one with much meaning to a vampire fan like me. Would non vampire fans wanting to watch a show for pure entertainment be drawn to it? I dunno. And that’s one of the difficulties. To be able to write strong, compelling episodes that vampire fans will want to discuss and debate while everyone is entertained in the process. I don’t think these two ideas (well, three if you layer in the romantic aspects/relationship writing into the series) that I’ve presented are incompatible with each other. But it must be difficult to write to achieve that balance and thus, this is probably the determining factor of whether the series lives or dies or goes to video and becomes undead. Sorry, I couldn't resist:)
True Blood starts Sunday, Sept. 7 on HBO. The stakes (sorry about the pun) are high but the cast is talented and the channel is ‘big’ enough so that I’m betting the production budget is fairly good for each episode. Let us all hope that the stories are not only interesting to us vampire fans but compelling to the regular tv watcher as well. I really enjoy vampire tv series because each one has a different philosophy on immortality and even watching a 'bad' vampire series (is there really one?) it’s interesting as a writer, to see each ‘take’ on it. In any case, tv series provide a short respite from writing. And we all need that every now and again. Let’s hope True Blood has the run that Buffy did. Although, if it does, I think I’m going to need another job just to pay my cable bill. Ah, well, maybe I’ll buy less books. See, now that really is fiction:)
Take care all,
Chris
PS--I also like to watch “The Tudors” and really enjoy the series. It’s not for the kids but has wonderful adult writing and circumstances. Anyway, just wanted to add that Jeremy Northam who portrayed St. Thomas More in the series also seems like an actor who could do a wonderful vampire character as well:)
Yep, summer’s almost over and autumn’s just around the corner. And while I’m not a regular tv watcher (I’m either writing or reading or on the net), I am excited this year because, once again, there’s another vampire series in the lineup. Called “True Blood”, it’s based on Charlaine Harris’ “Dead” series and stars Anna Paquin (yes, the little girl from the movie, The Piano for all us old-timers out there. As an aside, I’d love to see Sam Neill portray a vampire character someday in a movie or tv series but I digress.)
Anyway, I’ve been watching the sneak previews on HBO called “Blood Copy” (think they’re up to 11 episodes now) and they’ve been both funny (‘friends don’t let friends eat friends‘) and thought provoking (‘God hates fangs’) . I’ve seen a short ‘making of’ the series as well and so far, things look good. I even like the folksy character of Bill, the Civil War veteran (looks pretty average until he shows his fangs) since he’s described as such in the Harris’ books. There also seems to be a bit of “Buffy’ mixed into the flavor of the show, particularly when Sookie (Paquin) answers “I’m just a waitress” to the question of “what are you?” I also think I caught a flash in the program of master vamp, Eric, who looks like a head vamp should.
I must confess though, I go into every vampire show now with a measure of tempered excitement. You see, I’ve lived through many, many good vampire shows and their subsequent cancellations. Here is a list of the following vampire shows that I’ve watched (and liked, and were cancelled).
1. Cliffhanger Series (Michael Nouri played Dracula who ‘moonlighted’ as a college prof). I remember watching that series and liking the idea of a more ‘moral’ vampire. Bringing in the mother of the girl in love with Dracula as a vampire added an interesting touch as well. Though the vampires couldn’t help but to kill their victims for their blood, it was one of the first series that suggested that there might be something to want to live/become undead for.
2. Dark Shadows--I’ve seen much of the original black and white episodes and though Frid did a wonderful job, most of my memories of the show center around the ‘91 remake with Ben Cross. I confess, I was a big Cross fan back in the day (he did a small budget vampire movie called “Nightlife” in addition to doing the tv series “Far Pavilions”. MM Kaye is a wonderful writer and I rec “Far Pavilions” and “Shadow of the Moon” most highly). In my opinion, Cross did a fine Barnabas Collins opposite a sexy Joanna Going but unfortunately, unlike the original which ran for five years and 1225 episodes, the revival only ran 13 episodes. Perhaps the original had too big of faings to follow but in any case, this vampire series got the ax (or the stake, whichever you prefer).
3. The Kindred---Based on the novels, this series was another good one, I thought, but again, was short lived. I liked the bar owning vampire, Lily Langtree as well as the ‘prince of the city’, Julian Luna. It’s sad the actor (Mark Frankel) portraying the sexy vampire was killed in a motorcycle accident soon after the series was cancelled. There were many interesting things about the series (vampires were grouped into different ‘clans’ which explained the differences among the literary vampires). For example, Luna belonged to the business class of vampires called the Ventrue while the rat like vampires belonged to the Nosferatu clan. Each of the clans had a leader who sat in on meetings about vampire business and ‘voted’ for their interests. The analogy of this series of vampires being akin to the Mafia was another interesting idea and again, I wished that there were more episodes.
4. Dracula, the Series. This was a quirky vampire series done primarily for kids on Saturday mornings. Geordie Johnson did a nice job of portraying a very three dimensional Dracula character and Geraint Wyn Davies who was to play vampire Nick on FK was, in this show, the son of the main vampire hunter turned vampire on the show. Davies did a rather lighthearted job of the role and at times, in the beginning of FK, it was hard to see this actor as the very serious Nick. But Davies is a great actor and it didn't take me long to be convinced.
5. Forever Knight--started out as Crimetime after Primetime. Gained a huge following that probably became one of the first fans to translate their love of the series to the net. Great show. If you only want to watch one vampire show, this is the one to see in my opinion. The writers went through many of the issues surrounding vampire lore (religion (don't get me started on the vampires not being able to get into heaven unless they are human episode), suicide, love, loss, etc. I was a big Lacroix fan (PN Elrod, a wonderful writer of another great vampire series wrote two books with the actor who portrayed Lacroix, Nigel Bennett, though the books were not based on the immoral vampire character but a rather, more noble one). Liked the books and rec them highly as well:)
Though I didn't agree with much of the philosophy and wanted to throw a shoe at the tv sometime during each episode, this was the first vampire show that made me want to think more about the issues. And therefore, that's smart tv:)
6. Buffy and 7.Angel. Two of the most successful vampire series. There was much I enjoyed about the series (Spike for one) but I thought that vampires being possessed by demons (when humans ‘lost’ their soul, they gained a demon and were immortal) was a limiting factor when the concept of ‘moral vampires’ was introduced in the series. In any case, it ran for quite some time and provided me a good reason to not only watch tv every week but also, to buy a larger one as well (and a better VCR).
8. Port Charles---I think I was between jobs at the time and ended up watching some daytime tv. And lo and behold, there were vampires on tv. Was great to watch Caleb and Livy negotiate vampire love and desire. Since this was a soap opera, there were many sexy scenes though it wasn’t all fluff. Now and again, there were some questions about morality and vampires that Caleb (Michael Easton) had to deal with. And somehow, men always look sexier wearing fangs:)
9. Ultraviolet--I’m a huge Philip Quast fan (I so wish I could have seen him portray “Juan Peron” in “Evita’) and bought this series solely because he was in it. It was a British series and Quast played a Catholic priest who is dying of cancer. Needless to say, he has some issues to wrestle with as he runs an organization that is trying to find out what the vampires want from us humans these days. It’s a very complex series and presents the watcher with many issues to sort though. Just when you’re ‘sold’ on what the humans have to say about the vamps, a vampire character is introduced and turns it all on its head. Wonderful series, amazing acting. Again, very sad that it was also so short.
10. And 11.Moonlight and Blood Ties---These were two recent series which didn’t last very long either. I really liked Kyle Schmid as Henry (is an amazing actor. I couldn’t believe that he was so young because he had imbued the character with the ‘old soul’, been there, done that qualities which I don’t really see in many young actors/actresses these days. However, what was good was that Schmid kept just enough ‘youth’ in the character, actor was really in his 20s, so that every now and then, one could see a trace of the teenager that the mortal Henry must have been like before his conversion to immortality all those years ago. Blood Ties was on Lifetime, didn’t have that big of a budget and fans were unhappy with a number of things, including the fake looking monsters, the lack of street kid Tony and the never resolved (even a little) tensions between Mike, Vicki and Henry. In one story, Henry listened to Vicki when she thought he wouldn’t and as a reward, she allowed him to feed from her when they were in an elevator. Sexiest scene in the series. Too bad there weren’t more of them.
Moonlight had good characters too (liked Beth, Mick and Josef) and some in jokes (there was a “Lost Boys’ reference in there one week) but the story arc seemed uneven and the death of Beth’s human boyfriend was sudden and very shocking. Though the viewer understood that the human boyfriend was there to fill the ‘other guy’ role, the actor playing Josh did a very nice job and I really came to feel sympathy for him when he realized Beth was in love with Mick. I don’t remember if the writers knew that the series was being cancelled before killing off the human boyfriend but things after that seemed disjointed at best (would have been more interesting in this writer’s opinion if mortal was made immortal). At least, however, the last episode had a somewhat satisfying wrap up.
Am I done? This is all the series I can think of at the moment. But lately, it has been tough for some Sci-Fi series, even ones that did not center on vampires. The Dresden Files was cancelled which I thought was sad. I particularly liked Mann, (another actor who portrayed Javert in addition to Quast) as a ghost.
After looking at all these failed series, one has to wonder, “Is there hope for “True Blood”? I hope so but when making a vampire series one has to watch out for a couple of things. The characters must be adapted from page to screen, not necessarily rigidly so but imbued with enough of the traits to make those of us who’ve read the series to go “OK, that’s how I imaged he/she would look/act”. And how much of the character traits/quirks should the writers keep? It’s always tough to figure out what will translate well from the page to the screen but while I’m certain that the writers for “Blood Ties” thought it was a small thing, I know I was not the only one disappointed to see Henry driving a Jag instead of his trusted BMW.
So, OK, you got the characters and you think you’ve got them looking and acting like they did in the novels. But then, comes the hardest part, the story lines. Keeping them interesting and insightful to BOTH vampire and non vampire fans alike can be the biggest challenge. I know some people who watched “Forever Knight” and were bored with the show but I always enjoyed it for the issues they raised. For example, the vampire suicide episode (vampire actor/playwright decides she’s lived too long and commits suicide by burning in the sun) was a ‘quiet’ episode but one with much meaning to a vampire fan like me. Would non vampire fans wanting to watch a show for pure entertainment be drawn to it? I dunno. And that’s one of the difficulties. To be able to write strong, compelling episodes that vampire fans will want to discuss and debate while everyone is entertained in the process. I don’t think these two ideas (well, three if you layer in the romantic aspects/relationship writing into the series) that I’ve presented are incompatible with each other. But it must be difficult to write to achieve that balance and thus, this is probably the determining factor of whether the series lives or dies or goes to video and becomes undead. Sorry, I couldn't resist:)
True Blood starts Sunday, Sept. 7 on HBO. The stakes (sorry about the pun) are high but the cast is talented and the channel is ‘big’ enough so that I’m betting the production budget is fairly good for each episode. Let us all hope that the stories are not only interesting to us vampire fans but compelling to the regular tv watcher as well. I really enjoy vampire tv series because each one has a different philosophy on immortality and even watching a 'bad' vampire series (is there really one?) it’s interesting as a writer, to see each ‘take’ on it. In any case, tv series provide a short respite from writing. And we all need that every now and again. Let’s hope True Blood has the run that Buffy did. Although, if it does, I think I’m going to need another job just to pay my cable bill. Ah, well, maybe I’ll buy less books. See, now that really is fiction:)
Take care all,
Chris
PS--I also like to watch “The Tudors” and really enjoy the series. It’s not for the kids but has wonderful adult writing and circumstances. Anyway, just wanted to add that Jeremy Northam who portrayed St. Thomas More in the series also seems like an actor who could do a wonderful vampire character as well:)
Sunday, April 27, 2008
Immortal character, mortal feelings...
Hi all,
Probably like some of you reading this blog today, I saw last week’s episode of ‘Moonlight’ and, as a longtime writer of vampire fiction, found one part particularly resonant. At the end, when Beth and Mick are on the roof eating (well, she is) after he has turned back into a vampire, Mick tells Beth that things will be more complicated now (read: their relationship) because he’s once again a vampire. And her response is a good one. She tells him that it’s himself, not the vampire thing standing between them. Watching the episode, I had to agree with her. Mick's vampirism has nothing to do with preventing him to get closer to Beth. It's just an excuse that Mick can conveniently 'hide' behind when Beth demands intimacy. Perhaps, Mick is afraid of getting hurt. Perhaps, Mick is unsure of whether he could be the lover that Beth needs. In any case, the thing that is keeping him from being lovers with Beth is not his lack of mortality. Far from it. It has more to do with who Mick was as a mortal and who he still is inside. Beneath the fangs, so to speak:)
And that got me to thinking.
I write vampires (and about their condition) without putting a morality judgment on them, that is, I don’t see being a vampire, a bad or a good thing. My vampire characters don’t kill to feed. If they did, I might have to amend that latter statement. But anyway, I want to write about vampires and have their vampirism as just being another facet of their character. In other words, I am more interested in how they deal with life, death, love, etc. than just how they feel about being immortal. True, their problems may stem from their immortal condition (have vampire hunters chasing them) but many things that they experience, humans experience it as well (love, loss, what makes every day worthwhile). And more interestingly, how are these shared issues (my vampires are parents as well, Mina has biological child by deceased husband, Jonathan Harker) are dealt with in different (or even in similar ways) by the immortals.
And furthermore, how the vampires' mortal feelings will affect their judgment. Does the age of the vampire matter in how they deal with issues they've dealt with once long ago as humans? I think this depends on the individual vampire. Whatever the age though, even old, old vampires still have a memory or hold onto a piece of what they were like before they changed. Well, that's how I write my vampire characters, at least:)
I’ve discussed the idea of immortality with many of my online buddies. And, as I’ve said to a few, once one crosses over into immortality, they now are harder to kill but becoming a vampire doesn’t solve all their problems. It just creates a new set of problems that must be dealt with (and through writing, explored). And that’s what I find so interesting. Not the problems that center around vampirism (most of my vampires are ‘happy’ being vampires). But, rather, exploring through my writing how they now, as immortals, have to deal with some of the same (love, death, loss, parenting) and different (chased by vampire hunters) as humans do. What is also interesting to consider as a writer is how does one’s immortality affect decisions/situations that they’ve dealt with before as a mortal and now, have to deal with again as an immortal. For example, Vlad the Impaler (Dracula), as a mortal had a wife (two wives, according to some history texts) and children. For this writer, it will be exciting to have him deal with these issues he’s formerly dealt with as a mortal. Because now, as of the second book, he has both a partner, Mina and an ’adopted’ child, Quincey.
Some people say “you can’t go home again”, meaning, once you’ve lost something, it’s gone forever and you can’t get it back, whether it be a feeling, a person or a situation. Other people say that yes, it is possible. Still others feel that yes, you can try to recreate a situation, feeling, emotion, etc. and sometimes, you can even get it back, better than before. What is the truth? I dunno. Answering that question and those like it is why I write. In any case, it is something to consider as I continue writing my Dracula-Phantom series.
Take care all,
Chris
Probably like some of you reading this blog today, I saw last week’s episode of ‘Moonlight’ and, as a longtime writer of vampire fiction, found one part particularly resonant. At the end, when Beth and Mick are on the roof eating (well, she is) after he has turned back into a vampire, Mick tells Beth that things will be more complicated now (read: their relationship) because he’s once again a vampire. And her response is a good one. She tells him that it’s himself, not the vampire thing standing between them. Watching the episode, I had to agree with her. Mick's vampirism has nothing to do with preventing him to get closer to Beth. It's just an excuse that Mick can conveniently 'hide' behind when Beth demands intimacy. Perhaps, Mick is afraid of getting hurt. Perhaps, Mick is unsure of whether he could be the lover that Beth needs. In any case, the thing that is keeping him from being lovers with Beth is not his lack of mortality. Far from it. It has more to do with who Mick was as a mortal and who he still is inside. Beneath the fangs, so to speak:)
And that got me to thinking.
I write vampires (and about their condition) without putting a morality judgment on them, that is, I don’t see being a vampire, a bad or a good thing. My vampire characters don’t kill to feed. If they did, I might have to amend that latter statement. But anyway, I want to write about vampires and have their vampirism as just being another facet of their character. In other words, I am more interested in how they deal with life, death, love, etc. than just how they feel about being immortal. True, their problems may stem from their immortal condition (have vampire hunters chasing them) but many things that they experience, humans experience it as well (love, loss, what makes every day worthwhile). And more interestingly, how are these shared issues (my vampires are parents as well, Mina has biological child by deceased husband, Jonathan Harker) are dealt with in different (or even in similar ways) by the immortals.
And furthermore, how the vampires' mortal feelings will affect their judgment. Does the age of the vampire matter in how they deal with issues they've dealt with once long ago as humans? I think this depends on the individual vampire. Whatever the age though, even old, old vampires still have a memory or hold onto a piece of what they were like before they changed. Well, that's how I write my vampire characters, at least:)
I’ve discussed the idea of immortality with many of my online buddies. And, as I’ve said to a few, once one crosses over into immortality, they now are harder to kill but becoming a vampire doesn’t solve all their problems. It just creates a new set of problems that must be dealt with (and through writing, explored). And that’s what I find so interesting. Not the problems that center around vampirism (most of my vampires are ‘happy’ being vampires). But, rather, exploring through my writing how they now, as immortals, have to deal with some of the same (love, death, loss, parenting) and different (chased by vampire hunters) as humans do. What is also interesting to consider as a writer is how does one’s immortality affect decisions/situations that they’ve dealt with before as a mortal and now, have to deal with again as an immortal. For example, Vlad the Impaler (Dracula), as a mortal had a wife (two wives, according to some history texts) and children. For this writer, it will be exciting to have him deal with these issues he’s formerly dealt with as a mortal. Because now, as of the second book, he has both a partner, Mina and an ’adopted’ child, Quincey.
Some people say “you can’t go home again”, meaning, once you’ve lost something, it’s gone forever and you can’t get it back, whether it be a feeling, a person or a situation. Other people say that yes, it is possible. Still others feel that yes, you can try to recreate a situation, feeling, emotion, etc. and sometimes, you can even get it back, better than before. What is the truth? I dunno. Answering that question and those like it is why I write. In any case, it is something to consider as I continue writing my Dracula-Phantom series.
Take care all,
Chris
Thursday, April 24, 2008
Vampires, souls and sentiency: Or why zombies are so blanking scary.
Hi all,
I may be dating myself (I’m almost 40 these days) but if you ever get some time, watch some episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the next series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (the Dax character who has the brain of a man and the body of a woman is just such an incredibly rich, complex character) . I forget which episode and year (someone reading this blog may remember and if so, I thank you for it) but anyway, there was a wonderful episode about determining whether the android Data was sentient. It was a beautifully crafted episode from a writer’s point of view because it showed how an robot could be ‘human’ in everything but flesh and blood. Though Star Trek never took sides with religious issues, the fact that Data was declared sentient brought up the idea that he could also have a soul (an interesting idea from the religious angle of things).
Anyway, as a writer of vampire fiction, I’ve always been more interested in writing about sentient vampires. Not necessarily moral vampires since being sentient has nothing to do with morality. But vampires who remain essentially ‘themselves’ after they change, yeah, those are the type of vampires I enjoy writing about.
I just saw “30 Days of Night” and enjoyed it but most of the vampire characters (with the exception of the lead vampire character) only seemed partially sentient, if at all. And the human male character who was changing slowly into a vampire character after being bit was afraid of changing and of losing himself. And yeah, I can definitely understand the horror of this idea.
As a person, it is a scary thing to lose one’s sense of self. I never experienced it firsthand but rather, second hand, with my father who had a stroke. For two years, my mother and I were his primary caregivers and though he knew who we were until he passed away, there were times in the hospitals where he was not himself nor did he know who I was. It was a very scary thing to witness and it was extremely heartbreaking to try to speak to him at these times (when he did not know who I was).
And that’s why I think zombies, non-sentient/semi-sentient vampires are so scary and disturbing. Because on a primal level, one sees the characters and unconsciously is reminded of the diseases (such as dementia, Alzheimer’s) that can affect a human person’s sentiency. For all the Star Trek fans out there, that’s also probably why the Borg were so darn upsetting (as was Picard‘s morphing into Locutus). The Borg were like zombies in a way since one lost their sense of self (We are the Borg, you will be assimilated) when they were captured. 7 of 9 (and a Star Trek episode about the capture of a Borg child) brought sentiency back to the Borg characters and though they never lost their scariness, some did become humanized and we, as television viewers began to want to understand them as a race rather than just to be blanking afraid of them. In other words, when we could see the Borg as individuals (again, only the characters that I previously mentioned), we felt a ‘connection’ to them and felt that they could almost be understood. Well, some of them anyway. The others, yeah, you just need to escape from fast. Very fast.
That brings me back to vampires and sentiency. It is a scary thought to think of becoming immortal means losing one’s sentiency or sense of self. Even if one does not lose it completely (some vampires in the movie “30 Days of Night” seemed semi-sentient), being in a twilight state can seem even scarier to some. And I’m with that group. If becoming a vampire means giving up one’s sense of self, then, nope, I’d not sign on the dotted line. However, as I’ve said before, being a sentient vampire has nothing to do with how ‘moral’ a vampire character is or isn’t. Vampires can have a sense of self. And they can also be some mean SOB’s. But somehow, even seeing a cruel, evil vampire, while scary, is, in my opinion, less scary than seeing non-sentient beings. And they are interesting characters to write as well. Which is always a good thing:)
Take care all,
Chris
I may be dating myself (I’m almost 40 these days) but if you ever get some time, watch some episodes of Star Trek: The Next Generation, and the next series, Star Trek: Deep Space Nine (the Dax character who has the brain of a man and the body of a woman is just such an incredibly rich, complex character) . I forget which episode and year (someone reading this blog may remember and if so, I thank you for it) but anyway, there was a wonderful episode about determining whether the android Data was sentient. It was a beautifully crafted episode from a writer’s point of view because it showed how an robot could be ‘human’ in everything but flesh and blood. Though Star Trek never took sides with religious issues, the fact that Data was declared sentient brought up the idea that he could also have a soul (an interesting idea from the religious angle of things).
Anyway, as a writer of vampire fiction, I’ve always been more interested in writing about sentient vampires. Not necessarily moral vampires since being sentient has nothing to do with morality. But vampires who remain essentially ‘themselves’ after they change, yeah, those are the type of vampires I enjoy writing about.
I just saw “30 Days of Night” and enjoyed it but most of the vampire characters (with the exception of the lead vampire character) only seemed partially sentient, if at all. And the human male character who was changing slowly into a vampire character after being bit was afraid of changing and of losing himself. And yeah, I can definitely understand the horror of this idea.
As a person, it is a scary thing to lose one’s sense of self. I never experienced it firsthand but rather, second hand, with my father who had a stroke. For two years, my mother and I were his primary caregivers and though he knew who we were until he passed away, there were times in the hospitals where he was not himself nor did he know who I was. It was a very scary thing to witness and it was extremely heartbreaking to try to speak to him at these times (when he did not know who I was).
And that’s why I think zombies, non-sentient/semi-sentient vampires are so scary and disturbing. Because on a primal level, one sees the characters and unconsciously is reminded of the diseases (such as dementia, Alzheimer’s) that can affect a human person’s sentiency. For all the Star Trek fans out there, that’s also probably why the Borg were so darn upsetting (as was Picard‘s morphing into Locutus). The Borg were like zombies in a way since one lost their sense of self (We are the Borg, you will be assimilated) when they were captured. 7 of 9 (and a Star Trek episode about the capture of a Borg child) brought sentiency back to the Borg characters and though they never lost their scariness, some did become humanized and we, as television viewers began to want to understand them as a race rather than just to be blanking afraid of them. In other words, when we could see the Borg as individuals (again, only the characters that I previously mentioned), we felt a ‘connection’ to them and felt that they could almost be understood. Well, some of them anyway. The others, yeah, you just need to escape from fast. Very fast.
That brings me back to vampires and sentiency. It is a scary thought to think of becoming immortal means losing one’s sentiency or sense of self. Even if one does not lose it completely (some vampires in the movie “30 Days of Night” seemed semi-sentient), being in a twilight state can seem even scarier to some. And I’m with that group. If becoming a vampire means giving up one’s sense of self, then, nope, I’d not sign on the dotted line. However, as I’ve said before, being a sentient vampire has nothing to do with how ‘moral’ a vampire character is or isn’t. Vampires can have a sense of self. And they can also be some mean SOB’s. But somehow, even seeing a cruel, evil vampire, while scary, is, in my opinion, less scary than seeing non-sentient beings. And they are interesting characters to write as well. Which is always a good thing:)
Take care all,
Chris
Sunday, April 13, 2008
Vampires and Religion: Apples and Oranges?
Hi all,
As you might know from reading my Dracula-Phantom series, I am interested in the intersection of immortal beings and theology. I just wanted to discuss two thoughts with respect to this.
First: Til death do us part? Or is a marriage dissolved once a human becomes a vampire?
Several months ago, there were a couple of good discussions that I read on several “Moonlight” blogs about this idea, in other words, is Mick still considered married in the eyes of God even though he became a vampire? I’ve heard both for and against and just wanted to add my opinion on the matter. I write vampires as being sentient beings and not changing their personality as they enter immortality. Though having lived a long life, the vampire’s personality may change and shift, though these changes I show as ones that are affected by what happens after they become a vampire (their responses to conflicts in their long life). Therefore, since I ‘see’ immortals as still possessing their own ‘souls’ so to speak, that is, intrinsically being the same person before and directly after the change (though their long life, not their vampirism may ultimately affect their personality), I also would think that they would consider themselves spiritually ‘bound’ to their respective partners (definition of marriage in Christianity) even after their ‘death’. So yeah, I feel that the human now vampire doesn’t get ‘out of’ his/her marital obligations by just becoming immortal. In my opinion the ‘til death do you part’ refers more to the true death, not to immortality, which is just way to be alive
The other topic about vampires and religion that I‘ve always thought about is the idea of “Do all vampires go to heaven?” in other words, could an immortal being be “OK” in the eyes of their creator even though they’re a vampire? I’ve always been a person who thought that doing good works and helping out one’s fellow human being would count the most about where one would be ‘good enough’ for heaven. Therefore, I’d say “yeah, I think a vampire could go to heaven?” Would it be ‘tougher’ for him/her to ‘get in’? Probably. But then, if you read the Bible, Jesus says that it’s tough for rich people as well. So then, a vampire just has to work a bit harder.
If you’ve watched the great vampire television series that aired in the mid-90s (and is now on DVDs) called “Forever Knight” they aired an episode where Nick Knight (vampire cop) ‘died’ for a few minutes and met an angel. The angel told him that he could not get into heaven unless he became human again. It was a wonderful, thought provoking episode (as were most of the episodes of the show) but ultimately, I find that I have to disagree with their philosophy.
So, those are just some of my views on vampires, religion and immortality. As I’ve said, I’m always interested in these types of issues so expect to see more in my future blog posts.
Take care all,
Chris
As you might know from reading my Dracula-Phantom series, I am interested in the intersection of immortal beings and theology. I just wanted to discuss two thoughts with respect to this.
First: Til death do us part? Or is a marriage dissolved once a human becomes a vampire?
Several months ago, there were a couple of good discussions that I read on several “Moonlight” blogs about this idea, in other words, is Mick still considered married in the eyes of God even though he became a vampire? I’ve heard both for and against and just wanted to add my opinion on the matter. I write vampires as being sentient beings and not changing their personality as they enter immortality. Though having lived a long life, the vampire’s personality may change and shift, though these changes I show as ones that are affected by what happens after they become a vampire (their responses to conflicts in their long life). Therefore, since I ‘see’ immortals as still possessing their own ‘souls’ so to speak, that is, intrinsically being the same person before and directly after the change (though their long life, not their vampirism may ultimately affect their personality), I also would think that they would consider themselves spiritually ‘bound’ to their respective partners (definition of marriage in Christianity) even after their ‘death’. So yeah, I feel that the human now vampire doesn’t get ‘out of’ his/her marital obligations by just becoming immortal. In my opinion the ‘til death do you part’ refers more to the true death, not to immortality, which is just way to be alive
The other topic about vampires and religion that I‘ve always thought about is the idea of “Do all vampires go to heaven?” in other words, could an immortal being be “OK” in the eyes of their creator even though they’re a vampire? I’ve always been a person who thought that doing good works and helping out one’s fellow human being would count the most about where one would be ‘good enough’ for heaven. Therefore, I’d say “yeah, I think a vampire could go to heaven?” Would it be ‘tougher’ for him/her to ‘get in’? Probably. But then, if you read the Bible, Jesus says that it’s tough for rich people as well. So then, a vampire just has to work a bit harder.
If you’ve watched the great vampire television series that aired in the mid-90s (and is now on DVDs) called “Forever Knight” they aired an episode where Nick Knight (vampire cop) ‘died’ for a few minutes and met an angel. The angel told him that he could not get into heaven unless he became human again. It was a wonderful, thought provoking episode (as were most of the episodes of the show) but ultimately, I find that I have to disagree with their philosophy.
So, those are just some of my views on vampires, religion and immortality. As I’ve said, I’m always interested in these types of issues so expect to see more in my future blog posts.
Take care all,
Chris
Thursday, March 27, 2008
“The Coffin vs. Bed debate: Do more 'moral' vampires sleep in beds?
Hi all,
Just one question for all the writers reading this blog. Where does your vampire sleep? Notice, I didn’t ask about with whom. That’s material for another post:)
But yeah, so does your immortal character sleep in a bed or in a coffin. Because the more and more I’ve thought about it recently, the more it reflects and affects the character. Let me provide some examples. In my Dracula-Phantom universe, my Dracula character first starts out using a coffin (as in the Stoker book). However, once Mina comes to live by his side, he switches to a bed. While making love in a coffin can be thrilling and fun once in awhile, I decided to have my vampire characters sleep in a bed (though the pillow and mattress are filled with dirt from his country) because I thought it would not be comfortable for two beings to sleep in a confined space night after night. Intuitively, I also felt that by sleeping in a bed, Dracula could begin to ‘reconnect’ with his humanity. And the more I think about this idea, the more I feel I made the correct decision.
There were two very well written vampire series on television recently. One was Blood Ties and the other, Moonlight. It was interesting to see that while both vampires are ‘moral’, they have different sleeping arrangements. Henry (BT), sleeps in a regular bed, though he does have cool shades that block out the sunlight. Mick St. John (Moonlight) must sleep in a freezer-like coffin, it seems, to maintain his immortality. What made me really think deeply about how where one’s vampire character sleeps and how it affects/reflects their character was the wonderful recent episode of “Moonlight” where Mick becomes human for awhile and one of his favorite things to do, besides eating all different types of food, is sleeping on his couch with a blanket. This action makes the character feel more human and we, as viewers, also get the sense that being able to do something that the character has done back when they were human (sleep in a bed) is comforting and important for them to feel more mortal. Finally, the fact that Mick must sleep every night in a freezer will eventually affect his intimate relationship (if they move toward one) with Beth. This detail provides a 'road block' of sorts for Mick to become totally intimate with Beth. Certaintly, the vampire character has the ability to make love, but both he and Beth cannot spend the entire night together in bed. To stay immortal, Mick must return to his coffin. Again, a small detail (Mick must sleep in a coffin) can affect the chacter's life (intimacy with Beth).
How do famous vampire authors deal with this bed vs. coffin idea? Much like other issues, it varies. Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles) has her vampire characters sleep in coffins while interestingly, Laurell K. Hamilton (Anita Blake series) has her vampires able to sleep and make love in beds with mortals during the evening hours but prefer to move to the coffin to sleep in during the daylight (presumably, when their souls ‘depart’ for the day).
So, is there a connection between being a ‘good’ vampire and sleeping in a bed? Do all ‘evil’ vampires sleep in coffins? I’d have to think more about this (what books and movies I’ve seen and such) but I don’t think it divides neatly among these lines. However, I do think that a bed allows one’s vampire character to be able to feel more ‘mortal’. Will this cut down on his/her body count, I. e., will the feeling of being closer to their mortality allow them to possess a conscience and therefore, have them not kill as much as they do? Perhaps and then again, maybe not. As a writer of vampire fiction, I just find that it is interesting when writing your immortal characters to think about where they sleep and then, how that will affect their overall emotions.
So, I guess, I’ll end this blog by reasking the same question “Where does your vampire character sleep?”. And then, I’ll add another question. “How does this sleeping arrangement match and affect his personality?” Again, this is just a small issue in writing vampire fiction but one I find interesting to think about.
Take care all,
Chris
Just one question for all the writers reading this blog. Where does your vampire sleep? Notice, I didn’t ask about with whom. That’s material for another post:)
But yeah, so does your immortal character sleep in a bed or in a coffin. Because the more and more I’ve thought about it recently, the more it reflects and affects the character. Let me provide some examples. In my Dracula-Phantom universe, my Dracula character first starts out using a coffin (as in the Stoker book). However, once Mina comes to live by his side, he switches to a bed. While making love in a coffin can be thrilling and fun once in awhile, I decided to have my vampire characters sleep in a bed (though the pillow and mattress are filled with dirt from his country) because I thought it would not be comfortable for two beings to sleep in a confined space night after night. Intuitively, I also felt that by sleeping in a bed, Dracula could begin to ‘reconnect’ with his humanity. And the more I think about this idea, the more I feel I made the correct decision.
There were two very well written vampire series on television recently. One was Blood Ties and the other, Moonlight. It was interesting to see that while both vampires are ‘moral’, they have different sleeping arrangements. Henry (BT), sleeps in a regular bed, though he does have cool shades that block out the sunlight. Mick St. John (Moonlight) must sleep in a freezer-like coffin, it seems, to maintain his immortality. What made me really think deeply about how where one’s vampire character sleeps and how it affects/reflects their character was the wonderful recent episode of “Moonlight” where Mick becomes human for awhile and one of his favorite things to do, besides eating all different types of food, is sleeping on his couch with a blanket. This action makes the character feel more human and we, as viewers, also get the sense that being able to do something that the character has done back when they were human (sleep in a bed) is comforting and important for them to feel more mortal. Finally, the fact that Mick must sleep every night in a freezer will eventually affect his intimate relationship (if they move toward one) with Beth. This detail provides a 'road block' of sorts for Mick to become totally intimate with Beth. Certaintly, the vampire character has the ability to make love, but both he and Beth cannot spend the entire night together in bed. To stay immortal, Mick must return to his coffin. Again, a small detail (Mick must sleep in a coffin) can affect the chacter's life (intimacy with Beth).
How do famous vampire authors deal with this bed vs. coffin idea? Much like other issues, it varies. Anne Rice (The Vampire Chronicles) has her vampire characters sleep in coffins while interestingly, Laurell K. Hamilton (Anita Blake series) has her vampires able to sleep and make love in beds with mortals during the evening hours but prefer to move to the coffin to sleep in during the daylight (presumably, when their souls ‘depart’ for the day).
So, is there a connection between being a ‘good’ vampire and sleeping in a bed? Do all ‘evil’ vampires sleep in coffins? I’d have to think more about this (what books and movies I’ve seen and such) but I don’t think it divides neatly among these lines. However, I do think that a bed allows one’s vampire character to be able to feel more ‘mortal’. Will this cut down on his/her body count, I. e., will the feeling of being closer to their mortality allow them to possess a conscience and therefore, have them not kill as much as they do? Perhaps and then again, maybe not. As a writer of vampire fiction, I just find that it is interesting when writing your immortal characters to think about where they sleep and then, how that will affect their overall emotions.
So, I guess, I’ll end this blog by reasking the same question “Where does your vampire character sleep?”. And then, I’ll add another question. “How does this sleeping arrangement match and affect his personality?” Again, this is just a small issue in writing vampire fiction but one I find interesting to think about.
Take care all,
Chris
Sunday, February 24, 2008
“When a vampire‘s home is not their castle”
Hi all,
Though my first novel takes place in the late 1800s (and my second will be a continuation of the first), I have drawn up a timeline whereby I bring the characters of my Phantom-Dracula universe in the present day. As a writer, I think about where my vampire characters would be living in this, the 21st Century. Though the immortals in my universe are fairly rich (start out with some money and interest can really grow in a couple of hundred years), many live in one of the most famous cities in the world, New York City.
If you’ve ever visited New York, you know that the city is not homogenized, in that each neighborhood is different. For example, one can be wealthy but live on the monied, trendy Upper East Side or for the quieter, more suburban well off, the Upper West Side is always a good choice. Further down the island of Manhattan, one has Chelsea, SOHO and even, the Bowery. Each neighborhood may have similar living options (coops, town homes, brownstones, etc), yet, the surroundings make each one unique. The West Village is thought to be hip and trendy, yet the buildings are low and there are many families living there as well.
As I think about my characters, I try to decide where I see each of them living. For example, I think Dracula and Mina would definitely live on the Upper East Side. Not only is there glamour and exclusivity but the houses, mansions, are very much like castles. And though there is that glitz, there is the feel of being very private with high cast iron gates and such. So, a vampire as infamous as Dracula can live the high life and have his security too.
Extending this idea beyond vampire characters and even beyond New York, I do think it is important for writers to think about where their characters might reside. A house or a condo? A studio or a large house with many bedrooms? Urban or Suburban? Do they drive a car? What kind? How many? Does the character live with a lover, wife, husband, children, extended family, pets? If you decide that your character has a house or an apartment in a particular area, such as Manhattan, what does it look like? What color are the walls, the kitchen, even? Hey, even though Dracula and Mina are vampires, they do entertain humans every now and then and it is nice to have a grand dining room.
If these questions get you thinking, which they should, you might want to consider some others. Is the characters’ home neat? Messy? Do they collect many books? What kinds? Does your character have hobbies? And if so, which rooms reflect them? In other words, if one has a character that enjoys gardening for example, he/she may own a home that has a nice garden. Again, these are just some of the questions one as a writer must consider when deciding to create a home (or if they’re rich and undead, maybe two or three or four or more homes) for them.
I have some real estate friends in my life and they say that a home is reflective of a person’s personality. Walk through a home and you can get a sense of who the people are, what they like to do. For example, I enjoy reading and writing so my home is filled with shelves and shelves of books. Mostly fiction but there are nonfiction sections as well.
If you’re an author then and writing about your characters, one day, take a virtual mental tour of your characters’ house, even if only in your mind, not necessarily writing about it on paper. Make some notes in your writing notebook as you go. What do you see? What are the things that are most noticeable about the house? What catches your ’eye’? Are they in agreement with the character’s outer personality or are there things perhaps, that they have that not everyone knows about. For example, I am a longtime Springsteen fan and have several shelves as well as some posters of the rock superstar. Because I spend my time reading, writing and talking about vampires and romance, people are not always aware of that I also like rock music too.
You’ll have to excuse me now while I leave to take my mental tour of what I think Dracula and Mina’s New York City mansion would be like. I will be taking my time and looking where I step. Because there’ll always be a few wolves. The New York city inspectors think they’re dogs. Ah, yes, it would be fun to be a vampire in the City:)
Take care all,
Chris
Though my first novel takes place in the late 1800s (and my second will be a continuation of the first), I have drawn up a timeline whereby I bring the characters of my Phantom-Dracula universe in the present day. As a writer, I think about where my vampire characters would be living in this, the 21st Century. Though the immortals in my universe are fairly rich (start out with some money and interest can really grow in a couple of hundred years), many live in one of the most famous cities in the world, New York City.
If you’ve ever visited New York, you know that the city is not homogenized, in that each neighborhood is different. For example, one can be wealthy but live on the monied, trendy Upper East Side or for the quieter, more suburban well off, the Upper West Side is always a good choice. Further down the island of Manhattan, one has Chelsea, SOHO and even, the Bowery. Each neighborhood may have similar living options (coops, town homes, brownstones, etc), yet, the surroundings make each one unique. The West Village is thought to be hip and trendy, yet the buildings are low and there are many families living there as well.
As I think about my characters, I try to decide where I see each of them living. For example, I think Dracula and Mina would definitely live on the Upper East Side. Not only is there glamour and exclusivity but the houses, mansions, are very much like castles. And though there is that glitz, there is the feel of being very private with high cast iron gates and such. So, a vampire as infamous as Dracula can live the high life and have his security too.
Extending this idea beyond vampire characters and even beyond New York, I do think it is important for writers to think about where their characters might reside. A house or a condo? A studio or a large house with many bedrooms? Urban or Suburban? Do they drive a car? What kind? How many? Does the character live with a lover, wife, husband, children, extended family, pets? If you decide that your character has a house or an apartment in a particular area, such as Manhattan, what does it look like? What color are the walls, the kitchen, even? Hey, even though Dracula and Mina are vampires, they do entertain humans every now and then and it is nice to have a grand dining room.
If these questions get you thinking, which they should, you might want to consider some others. Is the characters’ home neat? Messy? Do they collect many books? What kinds? Does your character have hobbies? And if so, which rooms reflect them? In other words, if one has a character that enjoys gardening for example, he/she may own a home that has a nice garden. Again, these are just some of the questions one as a writer must consider when deciding to create a home (or if they’re rich and undead, maybe two or three or four or more homes) for them.
I have some real estate friends in my life and they say that a home is reflective of a person’s personality. Walk through a home and you can get a sense of who the people are, what they like to do. For example, I enjoy reading and writing so my home is filled with shelves and shelves of books. Mostly fiction but there are nonfiction sections as well.
If you’re an author then and writing about your characters, one day, take a virtual mental tour of your characters’ house, even if only in your mind, not necessarily writing about it on paper. Make some notes in your writing notebook as you go. What do you see? What are the things that are most noticeable about the house? What catches your ’eye’? Are they in agreement with the character’s outer personality or are there things perhaps, that they have that not everyone knows about. For example, I am a longtime Springsteen fan and have several shelves as well as some posters of the rock superstar. Because I spend my time reading, writing and talking about vampires and romance, people are not always aware of that I also like rock music too.
You’ll have to excuse me now while I leave to take my mental tour of what I think Dracula and Mina’s New York City mansion would be like. I will be taking my time and looking where I step. Because there’ll always be a few wolves. The New York city inspectors think they’re dogs. Ah, yes, it would be fun to be a vampire in the City:)
Take care all,
Chris
Saturday, January 5, 2008
Writing tip: Don’t write in a ‘static’ universe
Hi all,
Well, the holidays are almost over and people are getting back into the regular daily routine. And sometimes, things just seem so ‘blah’. That emotion can be transmitted into one’s writing and make it feel flat/lifeless.
Even if you’re working on a novel about plot A, you can still take some time out and think about your characters. Now, it’s easier to think about them and how they’d react over the holidays (Christmas, New Year’s, etc.). However, one should take some time and just think what a normal day with one consists of. Do they go to school, work? What classes do they take? What do they talk to their friends about? Do they stop at the local food store after work? What do they buy? I was talking once with a friend and we both agreed that no matter what characters/universe you’re writing about (yeah, even including vampires though they’d probably buy food for their guests, not themselves), you should be able to write at least one story about them going food shopping. Or if not writing it, be able to picture it in your mind.
I guess then, what I’m trying to say is that as an author, in order to write more vibrant characters, you should know them fully inside and out. Not only their likes and dislikes in a general sort of way but also, more intimate details. What sort of tea do they like? Do they use milk, lemon or both? And just how do they avoid those pesky vampire hunters in aisle 10? Yep, I guess vampires do have their own unique problems:)
Anyway, writing about a character’s daily routine will let you, as an author, feel closer to your character and be able to write them more fully (with more feeling) in subsequent stories, novels etc. if you allow yourself time to think about the sometimes mundane things that a character experiences in their life. And sometimes, that even includes writing your characters going food shopping:)
Take care all,
Chris
Well, the holidays are almost over and people are getting back into the regular daily routine. And sometimes, things just seem so ‘blah’. That emotion can be transmitted into one’s writing and make it feel flat/lifeless.
Even if you’re working on a novel about plot A, you can still take some time out and think about your characters. Now, it’s easier to think about them and how they’d react over the holidays (Christmas, New Year’s, etc.). However, one should take some time and just think what a normal day with one consists of. Do they go to school, work? What classes do they take? What do they talk to their friends about? Do they stop at the local food store after work? What do they buy? I was talking once with a friend and we both agreed that no matter what characters/universe you’re writing about (yeah, even including vampires though they’d probably buy food for their guests, not themselves), you should be able to write at least one story about them going food shopping. Or if not writing it, be able to picture it in your mind.
I guess then, what I’m trying to say is that as an author, in order to write more vibrant characters, you should know them fully inside and out. Not only their likes and dislikes in a general sort of way but also, more intimate details. What sort of tea do they like? Do they use milk, lemon or both? And just how do they avoid those pesky vampire hunters in aisle 10? Yep, I guess vampires do have their own unique problems:)
Anyway, writing about a character’s daily routine will let you, as an author, feel closer to your character and be able to write them more fully (with more feeling) in subsequent stories, novels etc. if you allow yourself time to think about the sometimes mundane things that a character experiences in their life. And sometimes, that even includes writing your characters going food shopping:)
Take care all,
Chris
Friday, December 28, 2007
Character traits and how they can help enrich your writing
Hi all,
Very recently, several of my writing buddies have been mentioning characters that have specific traits (from liking a particular color to enjoying a vacation to a certain city) in novels and how these traits/quirks has helped them either relate to the character, help to feel sympathy for the character but most importantly, make the fictional character seem ’real’ to the reader.
So, after reading all that, I sat down and thought about my universe. Do my characters have interesting habits/traits/quirks? Yep, they do and I wanted to mention a few. Mina Harker as a human sleeps with one of the most powerful vampires in all the world, Dracula, her soul mate below the Paris Opera House. Yet, she hates to sleep in the dark and always burns a gas lamp low to keep her room in only semi-darkness. Yeah, when you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense (vampires are more dangerous) but when I thought about giving Mina that trait/quirk, it seemed like a very human thing that someone would do and possibly would allow the readers to be able to feel a ‘connection’ to the Mina character when they read her.
My Dracula character can perform physically during lovemaking. It was never clear in Stoker’s book whether Dracula or any other vampire had the physical ability to make love. After much thinking, I decided that my vampire characters could consummate the act though Dracula is pretty miffed that Stoker didn’t include that little aspect in the book. I thought it would be a fun trait for Dracula to have and something interesting to include in my universe (the idea of Dracula not being able to perform is the issue that bothers him most with the Stoker book). And though that is illogical (Stoker documented many more atrocities in various journals in the book), I dunno but I think that might be the one issue that would bother a proud male vampire the most.
Finally, I’ve given my character, Quincey Harker, born in the first book but growing up in the second book, two traits. A love of reading and an interest in horses. As a kid, he’s going to walk around carrying horse dolls. Which I think is a cute trait to give a kid.
Quincey also has some scary marionette dolls. But then, they were made for him by his Uncle:)
So, in closing, I guess I’d say that it’s not the general details that you give your characters (hair color, handedness (Dracula and Erik are left handed, Mina and Christine are right handed)) but the intimate details (Mina will always love to bake and sew, even after she becomes a vampire and cannot eat the food) that make the reader more able to ‘connect’ with your characters and not only enjoy them, but also, enjoy the entire novel.
Happy New Year all!
Chris
Very recently, several of my writing buddies have been mentioning characters that have specific traits (from liking a particular color to enjoying a vacation to a certain city) in novels and how these traits/quirks has helped them either relate to the character, help to feel sympathy for the character but most importantly, make the fictional character seem ’real’ to the reader.
So, after reading all that, I sat down and thought about my universe. Do my characters have interesting habits/traits/quirks? Yep, they do and I wanted to mention a few. Mina Harker as a human sleeps with one of the most powerful vampires in all the world, Dracula, her soul mate below the Paris Opera House. Yet, she hates to sleep in the dark and always burns a gas lamp low to keep her room in only semi-darkness. Yeah, when you think about it, it doesn’t really make sense (vampires are more dangerous) but when I thought about giving Mina that trait/quirk, it seemed like a very human thing that someone would do and possibly would allow the readers to be able to feel a ‘connection’ to the Mina character when they read her.
My Dracula character can perform physically during lovemaking. It was never clear in Stoker’s book whether Dracula or any other vampire had the physical ability to make love. After much thinking, I decided that my vampire characters could consummate the act though Dracula is pretty miffed that Stoker didn’t include that little aspect in the book. I thought it would be a fun trait for Dracula to have and something interesting to include in my universe (the idea of Dracula not being able to perform is the issue that bothers him most with the Stoker book). And though that is illogical (Stoker documented many more atrocities in various journals in the book), I dunno but I think that might be the one issue that would bother a proud male vampire the most.
Finally, I’ve given my character, Quincey Harker, born in the first book but growing up in the second book, two traits. A love of reading and an interest in horses. As a kid, he’s going to walk around carrying horse dolls. Which I think is a cute trait to give a kid.
Quincey also has some scary marionette dolls. But then, they were made for him by his Uncle:)
So, in closing, I guess I’d say that it’s not the general details that you give your characters (hair color, handedness (Dracula and Erik are left handed, Mina and Christine are right handed)) but the intimate details (Mina will always love to bake and sew, even after she becomes a vampire and cannot eat the food) that make the reader more able to ‘connect’ with your characters and not only enjoy them, but also, enjoy the entire novel.
Happy New Year all!
Chris
Friday, December 21, 2007
Congratulations, you’ve just developed your own universe. Now what?
Hi all,
In this writer’s opinion, your second book may be even more important than your first one. Though the first novel ‘sets the stage’ so to speak, introducing your reader to a new universe and new ideas (in my universe, Dracula and Erik are buddies), the second novel provides the momentum to take the reader further into the universe that you’ve created. Hopefully, by the time the reader is done with your second novel, they will have become even more interested/invested in your characters and their situations and will want to read a third or even a fourth book.
Besides ensuring that your second book doesn’t follow the ‘formula’ of your first book (new plot, more new characters introduced, etc), you need to be able to be flexible as a writer to grow with your universe. What does that mean exactly? Well, as I’ve said, I’m a reader as well as a writer and with regard to the former, I’ve followed several authors over their writing life, some for double digit years (one writer for more than twenty years). In that time period, it is interesting to see the universe that you love as a reader begin to unfold and expand, sometimes in ways that you never thought it would after reading the very first novel in the series.
And that’s the important thing. Because though you may write in a genre (I’m a romance writer), you have to be ready to adjust to fit your character/universe’s needs. As I’ve just said, each book should be unique in plot, so therefore, one book may be more about romance whereas another book in the series may have more action or death or humor.
Not that every book shouldn’t have romance but one aspect or even several, may become more prominent as your universe and books move along. Therefore, as a writer you need to be sensitive to your character and their growing pains and need to be able to easily move and shift gears as the need to do this arises. And the need may come up just when you least expect it so be aware of this. If you cannot do this and remain static in your writing, your universe will also become lifeless and boring as well. As a reader I always liked reading book series since I enjoyed following the character (s) along his/her journey in life. Though the character may only exist between the printed pages, if one is a good writer, a character can feel almost ‘real’ to a reader. They will become very interested to your characters and therefore, will want to continue to read to see what happens next.
So, I guess my advice to the readers of this blog would be to be able to be flexible as a writer, that is, to be able to change and adapt to your universe’s needs. If suddenly a book needs to be an overall action book or even more violent than you are used to writing, it is important that you are able to adjust your writing style accordingly. It can be a difficult thing (I am still working on writing humor, it is the toughest for me to do, I think) to adapt your writing style with each successive book. But the readers of your universe will enjoy the characters more. And you probably will too.
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Happy Holidays! Enjoy and have fun:)
In this writer’s opinion, your second book may be even more important than your first one. Though the first novel ‘sets the stage’ so to speak, introducing your reader to a new universe and new ideas (in my universe, Dracula and Erik are buddies), the second novel provides the momentum to take the reader further into the universe that you’ve created. Hopefully, by the time the reader is done with your second novel, they will have become even more interested/invested in your characters and their situations and will want to read a third or even a fourth book.
Besides ensuring that your second book doesn’t follow the ‘formula’ of your first book (new plot, more new characters introduced, etc), you need to be able to be flexible as a writer to grow with your universe. What does that mean exactly? Well, as I’ve said, I’m a reader as well as a writer and with regard to the former, I’ve followed several authors over their writing life, some for double digit years (one writer for more than twenty years). In that time period, it is interesting to see the universe that you love as a reader begin to unfold and expand, sometimes in ways that you never thought it would after reading the very first novel in the series.
And that’s the important thing. Because though you may write in a genre (I’m a romance writer), you have to be ready to adjust to fit your character/universe’s needs. As I’ve just said, each book should be unique in plot, so therefore, one book may be more about romance whereas another book in the series may have more action or death or humor.
Not that every book shouldn’t have romance but one aspect or even several, may become more prominent as your universe and books move along. Therefore, as a writer you need to be sensitive to your character and their growing pains and need to be able to easily move and shift gears as the need to do this arises. And the need may come up just when you least expect it so be aware of this. If you cannot do this and remain static in your writing, your universe will also become lifeless and boring as well. As a reader I always liked reading book series since I enjoyed following the character (s) along his/her journey in life. Though the character may only exist between the printed pages, if one is a good writer, a character can feel almost ‘real’ to a reader. They will become very interested to your characters and therefore, will want to continue to read to see what happens next.
So, I guess my advice to the readers of this blog would be to be able to be flexible as a writer, that is, to be able to change and adapt to your universe’s needs. If suddenly a book needs to be an overall action book or even more violent than you are used to writing, it is important that you are able to adjust your writing style accordingly. It can be a difficult thing (I am still working on writing humor, it is the toughest for me to do, I think) to adapt your writing style with each successive book. But the readers of your universe will enjoy the characters more. And you probably will too.
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Happy Holidays! Enjoy and have fun:)
Thursday, December 20, 2007
The importance of properly naming your characters
Hi all,
If you’re a writer reading this blog, you know how important character names are to the overall impression that the reader will take away after reading your novel. ‘Improperly’ named characters can cause the reader even to feel lukewarm about one’s entire book and perhaps, if the characters are continually named wrong, may not purchase subsequent novels in your series.
Now, what do I mean by improperly naming one’s character? It can be a complex concept to explain in words but I will try here in this entry. Books, unlike movies are not visual and so, to have an entertaining novel, the reader must be able to visualize the story in his/her head as they are reading your book. This includes settings, action and most important of all, the physical traits of characters.
Movies are sometimes made after successful books and how many times have you read fans of a certain book say or write that they really ‘pictured the actor as the character’. Or not. In other words, the readers believe that so and so actor was chosen wisely or vice versa, meaning that they didn’t visualize the character as looking like the particular actor/actress chosen to play the role in the movie.
Do all readers have to visualize the character the same way to have a successful series? Does the writer’s version of what the character looks like have to agree with the reader’s? These are other, interesting questions, but since I am only talking about the concept of naming characters, I’d just say that there are general parameters that the reader and the author should ‘see’ in their mind about the physical attributes of the characters in a novel. There is some room for discrepancy between what the reader and the author visualize in their mind about certain characters but I do believe that the spectrum (between what the author and the reader sees) is narrower than what can be hypothesized. In other words, yes, for the most extent, the author can be most successful if he/she can translate what they see the physical attributes of their characters as being directly to their readers. How about emotional attributes, in other words, does the readers and the writers see the characters in the same way as the writer? Maybe something for another blog entry. Right now, I’m going to concentrate on the proper names of characters.
So as I’ve previously said, I believe that a writer is most successful with their series if their readers ‘see’ the characters in a very similar way that they do and this includes the physical attributes of the characters. But how to explain exactly what a character looks like in words? Oh, certainly you can say that chacter X is tall, short, thin, fat, has blonde hair or brown. But, when one names a character, the name sometimes suggests a certain physicality to the reader. For example, if one named a character William Bladestone, it seems to suggest a very Anglo-Saxon looking man, perhaps even somewhat conservative. Again, much can be ‘read’ into the character by the reader just looking at the name. Shortening a name, calling an Elizabeth, Liz for example, takes the character from a more staid visual by the reader (Elizabeth) and transforms the character into a hip, modern version (Liz).
The next issue that a writer should be aware of when naming a character is to be certain that the name matches the century in which you are writing as well as the ethnicity of the character. Since I am writing a Phantom Dracula crossover universe and most of my action (at least in the first book in the series) took place in Paris, many of my character names were of French origin. Dracula is Romanian and so several characters had names belonging specifically to that country as well. Though Bob is a very good name (William actually being the more ’correct’ version for the 1800s), it is English in origin and therefore, would not ‘fit’ a French character well.
Some names have a specific origin but are more general in their use. For example, though Joseph is of Hebrew origin, depending on what surname you give to the character, you can use this name for more than just one ethnicity. Naming vampires can be interesting as well and one wants to give an ‘old’ vampire an ‘old’ sounding name. Many modern names of real life people that we know today came into fashion in the late 20th Century. Personally, I don’t think I’d name a 1,000 year old vampire Ashley, since the name sounds too modern and updated for one so old.
Now, what if you do name your character improperly, not paying attention to time period of story setting and ethnicity/country of origin of your character? Well, not much may happen on the initial draft, though your first readers may suggest a name change. But perhaps, for whatever reason, they don’t see the name as a problem. Then, one’s editor may ‘catch’ the incorrectly named character (you know, I don’t visualize character X as ‘looking’ like an X’) and so, then, you may need to rename that character. But sometimes everyone thinks that the names are good and then, the book goes to print and then your readers have some difficulty with the names. Either the names don’t match what you describe the characters to be or maybe they’ve never met a person named Charlotte so it is difficult for the reader to make the important connections in their mind. Therefore, your book 'fails' for them because that reader cannot ‘see’ that character well as they read your book.
Naming characters incorrectly then, will provide less enjoyment for the reader because they cannot feel emotionally close to the story (character is fuzzy or just bland (not 3D, colorful as they should be) in their imagination). Worst of all, naming a 19th Century French character Bob, will pull the reader physically and emotionally out of the story when their eyes come across that name. Do it too much and you’ve ‘lost’ the illusion so the speak, meaning that the reader, having been immersed in your story, is pulled/even ripped, depending on how ‘bad’ the name is, out of the storyline and so, the reader may even categorize the story overall as not effortless or enjoyable simply because of one or a few improperly named characters.
Continually improper naming of characters, naming characters without regard to time period, origin of birth, etc. will cause you to lose perhaps, not your initial first readers (though book reviews may remark about improperly named characters) but also readers that would buy a second book in the series. These 'second' readers may not since they did not like your first book. And though liking and disliking a book may be subjective, properly naming one’s characters will ensure that at least, you as a writer, have done all you can to keep your reader both interested and engaged in your storyline. And a ‘hungry’ reader, that is, one who has read and loved your book and wants to see ‘what happens next‘, is always your best customer.
Take care all,
Chris
If you’re a writer reading this blog, you know how important character names are to the overall impression that the reader will take away after reading your novel. ‘Improperly’ named characters can cause the reader even to feel lukewarm about one’s entire book and perhaps, if the characters are continually named wrong, may not purchase subsequent novels in your series.
Now, what do I mean by improperly naming one’s character? It can be a complex concept to explain in words but I will try here in this entry. Books, unlike movies are not visual and so, to have an entertaining novel, the reader must be able to visualize the story in his/her head as they are reading your book. This includes settings, action and most important of all, the physical traits of characters.
Movies are sometimes made after successful books and how many times have you read fans of a certain book say or write that they really ‘pictured the actor as the character’. Or not. In other words, the readers believe that so and so actor was chosen wisely or vice versa, meaning that they didn’t visualize the character as looking like the particular actor/actress chosen to play the role in the movie.
Do all readers have to visualize the character the same way to have a successful series? Does the writer’s version of what the character looks like have to agree with the reader’s? These are other, interesting questions, but since I am only talking about the concept of naming characters, I’d just say that there are general parameters that the reader and the author should ‘see’ in their mind about the physical attributes of the characters in a novel. There is some room for discrepancy between what the reader and the author visualize in their mind about certain characters but I do believe that the spectrum (between what the author and the reader sees) is narrower than what can be hypothesized. In other words, yes, for the most extent, the author can be most successful if he/she can translate what they see the physical attributes of their characters as being directly to their readers. How about emotional attributes, in other words, does the readers and the writers see the characters in the same way as the writer? Maybe something for another blog entry. Right now, I’m going to concentrate on the proper names of characters.
So as I’ve previously said, I believe that a writer is most successful with their series if their readers ‘see’ the characters in a very similar way that they do and this includes the physical attributes of the characters. But how to explain exactly what a character looks like in words? Oh, certainly you can say that chacter X is tall, short, thin, fat, has blonde hair or brown. But, when one names a character, the name sometimes suggests a certain physicality to the reader. For example, if one named a character William Bladestone, it seems to suggest a very Anglo-Saxon looking man, perhaps even somewhat conservative. Again, much can be ‘read’ into the character by the reader just looking at the name. Shortening a name, calling an Elizabeth, Liz for example, takes the character from a more staid visual by the reader (Elizabeth) and transforms the character into a hip, modern version (Liz).
The next issue that a writer should be aware of when naming a character is to be certain that the name matches the century in which you are writing as well as the ethnicity of the character. Since I am writing a Phantom Dracula crossover universe and most of my action (at least in the first book in the series) took place in Paris, many of my character names were of French origin. Dracula is Romanian and so several characters had names belonging specifically to that country as well. Though Bob is a very good name (William actually being the more ’correct’ version for the 1800s), it is English in origin and therefore, would not ‘fit’ a French character well.
Some names have a specific origin but are more general in their use. For example, though Joseph is of Hebrew origin, depending on what surname you give to the character, you can use this name for more than just one ethnicity. Naming vampires can be interesting as well and one wants to give an ‘old’ vampire an ‘old’ sounding name. Many modern names of real life people that we know today came into fashion in the late 20th Century. Personally, I don’t think I’d name a 1,000 year old vampire Ashley, since the name sounds too modern and updated for one so old.
Now, what if you do name your character improperly, not paying attention to time period of story setting and ethnicity/country of origin of your character? Well, not much may happen on the initial draft, though your first readers may suggest a name change. But perhaps, for whatever reason, they don’t see the name as a problem. Then, one’s editor may ‘catch’ the incorrectly named character (you know, I don’t visualize character X as ‘looking’ like an X’) and so, then, you may need to rename that character. But sometimes everyone thinks that the names are good and then, the book goes to print and then your readers have some difficulty with the names. Either the names don’t match what you describe the characters to be or maybe they’ve never met a person named Charlotte so it is difficult for the reader to make the important connections in their mind. Therefore, your book 'fails' for them because that reader cannot ‘see’ that character well as they read your book.
Naming characters incorrectly then, will provide less enjoyment for the reader because they cannot feel emotionally close to the story (character is fuzzy or just bland (not 3D, colorful as they should be) in their imagination). Worst of all, naming a 19th Century French character Bob, will pull the reader physically and emotionally out of the story when their eyes come across that name. Do it too much and you’ve ‘lost’ the illusion so the speak, meaning that the reader, having been immersed in your story, is pulled/even ripped, depending on how ‘bad’ the name is, out of the storyline and so, the reader may even categorize the story overall as not effortless or enjoyable simply because of one or a few improperly named characters.
Continually improper naming of characters, naming characters without regard to time period, origin of birth, etc. will cause you to lose perhaps, not your initial first readers (though book reviews may remark about improperly named characters) but also readers that would buy a second book in the series. These 'second' readers may not since they did not like your first book. And though liking and disliking a book may be subjective, properly naming one’s characters will ensure that at least, you as a writer, have done all you can to keep your reader both interested and engaged in your storyline. And a ‘hungry’ reader, that is, one who has read and loved your book and wants to see ‘what happens next‘, is always your best customer.
Take care all,
Chris
Sunday, December 9, 2007
Change: Is it a good or a bad thing for authors?
Hi all,
Since my last post was about the holiday season, I thought I would follow it with thoughts derived from the holiday that follows Christmas. Yep, it's the good ol' new year. This year it will be 2008 and for someone growing up in the ‘70s, it’s amazing that we’ll see the year of 2010 very, very soon.
And so the new year provides us all, writers and non writers alike to look back at the past year and see both how far we’ve come and how far we’ve yet left to go. The new year is a time to assess past goals and make new ones for the upcoming year. But, this time is also a time when we think about change. How much we have changed. And how little.
As writers, we’d like to think that we’ve ‘grown’ in our writing, that is, that we’ve been able to show more complexity in our work. But since many of our readers fell in love with our first novel, is this change indeed a good thing?
Though one’s writing should develop more depth as one becomes hopefully, more adept at writing novels, I think that one should not lose sight of what the readers enjoyed about one’s first novel. Therefore, in order to ‘recapture’ what your readers enjoy about your work, I think you should reread yourself from time to time.
Now, I’m not saying that every week you should pull your book(s) off of your bookshelf and read yourself with that much repetition. However, though, I do feel that unless you read yourself semi-regularly (maybe a few chapters every month or so), you might eventually move so far away from your original inner voice that you will be distancing yourself from your readers.
As I’ve said previously in this blog entry, everyone ‘changes’/grows/develops every year. And yes, that is a good thing. However, keeping one’s inner voice consistent is important, especially if you’re doing a book series and wanting to keep your original fans interested in your current work. By not rereading your own work, you may find that you have drifted too far from your original voice and so, perhaps, be writing ‘better’ than you’ve written, but your new books will not match the old ones. In other words, your voice won’t ‘sound’ the same to your old fans. This is not a good thing since your old fans may not find that they enjoy your new/improved writer's voice and so, may move on to other authors/other books.
I guess the ‘trick’ of it all then, is to be able to reread one’s work (again, not rereading an entire novel but perhaps a chapter or two a month) and try to remember what it was that readers enjoyed about your universe enough to purchase your work. I think that if the writer keeps doing this from time to time, they then, can move forward in a sense and keep developing as a writer. You might lose a piece of your original ‘voice’ (original voice may shift/change a bit over time) but you will still keep the essence of what it is that your fans enjoy about your universe/characters in tact.
Before I was a writer, I was an avid reader in the romance genre, particularly in the vampire romance genre. I have many favorite authors and the most wonderful thing for me as a reader is to be able to purchase their new novel and on beginning to read them, ‘feel’ their voice talking to me as I read. It’s comforting as a reader (some authors I’ve been reading over 20 years) to be able to reconnect in a sense with the author’s inner voice and the knowing that they’ve kept the original magic of their first book going over the entire series (and is present in their new book).
So, in summation, I’d say that change is good but as a writer, one should be aware of one's changing over time. I wouldn’t say not to change your ‘voice’ but I’d say that if you’re working on making each succeeding novel ‘better’ understand and try to keep the essence of what made your faithful readers/fans first want to buy and read your work in the first place. Again, I believe that a writer can achieve these two distinct and opposing sounding goals (growing as a writer while trying to keep your original voice the same) by rereading themselves occasionally. Only by revisiting one’s old work can one be able to see the past and be able to plan and build for the future.
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Next up: 19th Century French characters named Bob or why one should choose appropriate names for your characters.
Since my last post was about the holiday season, I thought I would follow it with thoughts derived from the holiday that follows Christmas. Yep, it's the good ol' new year. This year it will be 2008 and for someone growing up in the ‘70s, it’s amazing that we’ll see the year of 2010 very, very soon.
And so the new year provides us all, writers and non writers alike to look back at the past year and see both how far we’ve come and how far we’ve yet left to go. The new year is a time to assess past goals and make new ones for the upcoming year. But, this time is also a time when we think about change. How much we have changed. And how little.
As writers, we’d like to think that we’ve ‘grown’ in our writing, that is, that we’ve been able to show more complexity in our work. But since many of our readers fell in love with our first novel, is this change indeed a good thing?
Though one’s writing should develop more depth as one becomes hopefully, more adept at writing novels, I think that one should not lose sight of what the readers enjoyed about one’s first novel. Therefore, in order to ‘recapture’ what your readers enjoy about your work, I think you should reread yourself from time to time.
Now, I’m not saying that every week you should pull your book(s) off of your bookshelf and read yourself with that much repetition. However, though, I do feel that unless you read yourself semi-regularly (maybe a few chapters every month or so), you might eventually move so far away from your original inner voice that you will be distancing yourself from your readers.
As I’ve said previously in this blog entry, everyone ‘changes’/grows/develops every year. And yes, that is a good thing. However, keeping one’s inner voice consistent is important, especially if you’re doing a book series and wanting to keep your original fans interested in your current work. By not rereading your own work, you may find that you have drifted too far from your original voice and so, perhaps, be writing ‘better’ than you’ve written, but your new books will not match the old ones. In other words, your voice won’t ‘sound’ the same to your old fans. This is not a good thing since your old fans may not find that they enjoy your new/improved writer's voice and so, may move on to other authors/other books.
I guess the ‘trick’ of it all then, is to be able to reread one’s work (again, not rereading an entire novel but perhaps a chapter or two a month) and try to remember what it was that readers enjoyed about your universe enough to purchase your work. I think that if the writer keeps doing this from time to time, they then, can move forward in a sense and keep developing as a writer. You might lose a piece of your original ‘voice’ (original voice may shift/change a bit over time) but you will still keep the essence of what it is that your fans enjoy about your universe/characters in tact.
Before I was a writer, I was an avid reader in the romance genre, particularly in the vampire romance genre. I have many favorite authors and the most wonderful thing for me as a reader is to be able to purchase their new novel and on beginning to read them, ‘feel’ their voice talking to me as I read. It’s comforting as a reader (some authors I’ve been reading over 20 years) to be able to reconnect in a sense with the author’s inner voice and the knowing that they’ve kept the original magic of their first book going over the entire series (and is present in their new book).
So, in summation, I’d say that change is good but as a writer, one should be aware of one's changing over time. I wouldn’t say not to change your ‘voice’ but I’d say that if you’re working on making each succeeding novel ‘better’ understand and try to keep the essence of what made your faithful readers/fans first want to buy and read your work in the first place. Again, I believe that a writer can achieve these two distinct and opposing sounding goals (growing as a writer while trying to keep your original voice the same) by rereading themselves occasionally. Only by revisiting one’s old work can one be able to see the past and be able to plan and build for the future.
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Next up: 19th Century French characters named Bob or why one should choose appropriate names for your characters.
Saturday, December 1, 2007
The Writing Notebook: An indispensable tool for Writers
Hi all,
Yep, it’s that time of year again. The holiday season. And while it’s one of my favorite times of the year, it can get even crazier in my household than normal (and that’s saying something!LOL).
Though I read and write romance novels, I am still single. Therefore, I’m in charge with what goes on in my household. Besides decorating, shopping and planning, I have other chores to do like ‘Um, why is the light not working, sigh?’ for example and so I must put my writing aside and deal with the crises at hand.
What’s hard as a writer is to not only find the time to write but to be able to set aside said writing to go deal with running a household, your day job and other things and then, go back to writing again. Yeah, sometimes writing is analogous to making love, I.e., you need to get back into the ‘right’ mood:)
So how does a writing notebook help you toward this? Well, let me give an example. There’s a couple of projects I want to work on but keep getting interrupted. Putting things down on paper will allow you as a writer, to come back to your work at a later time and thus to be able to begin working again more quickly.
Though what’s written in my writing notebook may not be as decipherable as a story or parts of a novel to most. It contains short phrases, descriptions of setting/characters and smatterings of dialogue, just to name a few things of what is written in there. Is everything in a linear order? Most but not all. Yeah, I do have arrows drawn linking ideas to different things because sometimes I write all over the page including in the margins.
Some writers use post it notes and I can understand that in some ways since I used index cards as a student to write my non-fiction research papers (index cards with ideas written on them *are* easier to shuffle) but I have a problem of losing stuff so I tend to prefer the solidness and dependability of keeping everything in one place, that is, the notebook.
I’m almost 40 and didn’t start writing my work on a computer until I was about 20 so my writing notebook is done by hand. I dunno, it’s probably my age but I do like to physically write my ideas down on paper. It somehow lets me plan everything out and feel ’closer’ to my ideas/story than when I type things on a computer. For me, the computer provides a bit of distance, something that physical writing does not. But talking with other writers who are younger than me, the former is not true for them. So yeah, it’s probably my age and therefore, your notebook, I guess can be digital. Though when you’re between writing ideas, you can’t doodle (as easily) on a computer page:)
To sum up then, I think a writing notebook is good for us writers since it acts as a ‘second brain’ as such to provide a safe and a secure place (harder to lose notebook than index cards) to store ideas until future use.
A writing notebook is also good because you can store ideas about your universe, including character descriptions and plot. I’m one of those writers who set up an outline before I write my book/story and so writing a plot in a notebook allows me to physically see if a story or book will ‘work’ before I go in a start writing it. Also, if you have your plot written out in your notebook, you can also see where the plot points are and how ‘balanced’ everything is (that your book/story isn’t lopsided in that everything important doesn’t happen in the last five pages or so while you have nothing interesting for the first couple of hundred).
Finally, if you are involved in writing a universe and plan to write two, three, four, five or even more books about the same characters, keeping a writing notebook will allow you to record minor details. In other words, if you want to look up a specific thing (what present character 1 gave to character 2 on first Christmas for example) you won’t have to reread your entire book or large sections of your books to do this. Though I do suggest that writers do reread their books from time to time, but that is again, the subject of another post. Keeping facts, character traits, etc. in a writing notebook is important because then, you can save time by not rereading entire large sections of your book to find out a single fact that you may have forgotten and get back to doing what you need to be doing, that is, writing another book.
Take care all,
Chris
Yep, it’s that time of year again. The holiday season. And while it’s one of my favorite times of the year, it can get even crazier in my household than normal (and that’s saying something!LOL).
Though I read and write romance novels, I am still single. Therefore, I’m in charge with what goes on in my household. Besides decorating, shopping and planning, I have other chores to do like ‘Um, why is the light not working, sigh?’ for example and so I must put my writing aside and deal with the crises at hand.
What’s hard as a writer is to not only find the time to write but to be able to set aside said writing to go deal with running a household, your day job and other things and then, go back to writing again. Yeah, sometimes writing is analogous to making love, I.e., you need to get back into the ‘right’ mood:)
So how does a writing notebook help you toward this? Well, let me give an example. There’s a couple of projects I want to work on but keep getting interrupted. Putting things down on paper will allow you as a writer, to come back to your work at a later time and thus to be able to begin working again more quickly.
Though what’s written in my writing notebook may not be as decipherable as a story or parts of a novel to most. It contains short phrases, descriptions of setting/characters and smatterings of dialogue, just to name a few things of what is written in there. Is everything in a linear order? Most but not all. Yeah, I do have arrows drawn linking ideas to different things because sometimes I write all over the page including in the margins.
Some writers use post it notes and I can understand that in some ways since I used index cards as a student to write my non-fiction research papers (index cards with ideas written on them *are* easier to shuffle) but I have a problem of losing stuff so I tend to prefer the solidness and dependability of keeping everything in one place, that is, the notebook.
I’m almost 40 and didn’t start writing my work on a computer until I was about 20 so my writing notebook is done by hand. I dunno, it’s probably my age but I do like to physically write my ideas down on paper. It somehow lets me plan everything out and feel ’closer’ to my ideas/story than when I type things on a computer. For me, the computer provides a bit of distance, something that physical writing does not. But talking with other writers who are younger than me, the former is not true for them. So yeah, it’s probably my age and therefore, your notebook, I guess can be digital. Though when you’re between writing ideas, you can’t doodle (as easily) on a computer page:)
To sum up then, I think a writing notebook is good for us writers since it acts as a ‘second brain’ as such to provide a safe and a secure place (harder to lose notebook than index cards) to store ideas until future use.
A writing notebook is also good because you can store ideas about your universe, including character descriptions and plot. I’m one of those writers who set up an outline before I write my book/story and so writing a plot in a notebook allows me to physically see if a story or book will ‘work’ before I go in a start writing it. Also, if you have your plot written out in your notebook, you can also see where the plot points are and how ‘balanced’ everything is (that your book/story isn’t lopsided in that everything important doesn’t happen in the last five pages or so while you have nothing interesting for the first couple of hundred).
Finally, if you are involved in writing a universe and plan to write two, three, four, five or even more books about the same characters, keeping a writing notebook will allow you to record minor details. In other words, if you want to look up a specific thing (what present character 1 gave to character 2 on first Christmas for example) you won’t have to reread your entire book or large sections of your books to do this. Though I do suggest that writers do reread their books from time to time, but that is again, the subject of another post. Keeping facts, character traits, etc. in a writing notebook is important because then, you can save time by not rereading entire large sections of your book to find out a single fact that you may have forgotten and get back to doing what you need to be doing, that is, writing another book.
Take care all,
Chris
Friday, November 23, 2007
Writing about moral villains/vampires
Hi. Yep, it’s yet another post about writing humanistic villains. And you’re probably sick and tired of hearing all the reasons because it’s been done over and over again. But just hear me out this once.
Although I consider ‘moral vampires’ to be rather an oxymoron (I‘ll save my thoughts on that one for another post), I do write my immortals fairly human like and here’s why. First of all, I think it makes the story/novel more interesting if you write about sentient beings. Yeah, non-sentient creatures can be very scary (Zombies creep me out, yuck!) as they are coming at you to kill you but there they akin to being a ‘force of nature’, almost things rather than people. So, while you can write great action sequences, most of your story needs to concentrate on the humans and what they’re feeling. Because once you make your villains non-sentient, you can’t write about their personalities. And that makes can make your story less complex and interesting.
OK, so now you’ve got your sentient villains. But why make them ‘good’ instead of ‘evil’? Since I’m a math/science person in my day job, I’ll explain it first in terms of that. Statistically speaking, writing very human villains, you, as a writer, get more ‘degrees of freedom’ out of your character. So what does that mean? Simple. If your character is ‘good’ on the outside, you can still layer him/her with some interesting stuff on the inside. For example, as you probably know from reading my work (if not, please consider reading my first novel “Vampires at the Opera”, click link on my user page to buy), I write a very romantic and fairly moral Dracula character. His soul mate is Mina and he is both loyal to her and to her son, Quincey who is the biological son of Jonathan Harker.
However, I still consider Dracula to be Dracula in that most of the historical stuff written about him (killing all those people) really happened. So, in my work, I have the ability and the freedom/flexibility to slowly strip off the layers of my Dracula character (or pull them off all at once) to reveal some less moral sides of him. I can have him do some unsavory acts and it will be logical (and unsettling as well) to the reader for him to have done these things. Because yeah, after all, he is Dracula.
Some people write the opposite way, that is, they write a very evil character that every once in awhile shows a flash of good. But for me, I’d like my readers to be able to sympathize with my immortal characters and feel like they know them. In this way then, when the character acts badly, the reader will be left unsettled (which is not a bad feeling for one’s reader to have in my opinion at times) and will need to think further about different issues, philosophies, etc that are raised in the stories/books. I think one can get the reader to feel close to the characters (make the reader feel disturbed at what the vampire has done) if you start out writing the character as a villain. In other words, if you write the character as evil, there is no way to go but down. If you start off writing the character as moral, you get much more flexibility in your character and subsequently, in your universe as well since there are many directions he/she can go. Therefore, then, I believe that a ‘moral’ villain is a more complex one and can make your stories/novels more interesting to your readers. And you can also write about their relationship with their kids. Which is what my second and third books in my series will be about.
Take care all,
Christine
Although I consider ‘moral vampires’ to be rather an oxymoron (I‘ll save my thoughts on that one for another post), I do write my immortals fairly human like and here’s why. First of all, I think it makes the story/novel more interesting if you write about sentient beings. Yeah, non-sentient creatures can be very scary (Zombies creep me out, yuck!) as they are coming at you to kill you but there they akin to being a ‘force of nature’, almost things rather than people. So, while you can write great action sequences, most of your story needs to concentrate on the humans and what they’re feeling. Because once you make your villains non-sentient, you can’t write about their personalities. And that makes can make your story less complex and interesting.
OK, so now you’ve got your sentient villains. But why make them ‘good’ instead of ‘evil’? Since I’m a math/science person in my day job, I’ll explain it first in terms of that. Statistically speaking, writing very human villains, you, as a writer, get more ‘degrees of freedom’ out of your character. So what does that mean? Simple. If your character is ‘good’ on the outside, you can still layer him/her with some interesting stuff on the inside. For example, as you probably know from reading my work (if not, please consider reading my first novel “Vampires at the Opera”, click link on my user page to buy), I write a very romantic and fairly moral Dracula character. His soul mate is Mina and he is both loyal to her and to her son, Quincey who is the biological son of Jonathan Harker.
However, I still consider Dracula to be Dracula in that most of the historical stuff written about him (killing all those people) really happened. So, in my work, I have the ability and the freedom/flexibility to slowly strip off the layers of my Dracula character (or pull them off all at once) to reveal some less moral sides of him. I can have him do some unsavory acts and it will be logical (and unsettling as well) to the reader for him to have done these things. Because yeah, after all, he is Dracula.
Some people write the opposite way, that is, they write a very evil character that every once in awhile shows a flash of good. But for me, I’d like my readers to be able to sympathize with my immortal characters and feel like they know them. In this way then, when the character acts badly, the reader will be left unsettled (which is not a bad feeling for one’s reader to have in my opinion at times) and will need to think further about different issues, philosophies, etc that are raised in the stories/books. I think one can get the reader to feel close to the characters (make the reader feel disturbed at what the vampire has done) if you start out writing the character as a villain. In other words, if you write the character as evil, there is no way to go but down. If you start off writing the character as moral, you get much more flexibility in your character and subsequently, in your universe as well since there are many directions he/she can go. Therefore, then, I believe that a ‘moral’ villain is a more complex one and can make your stories/novels more interesting to your readers. And you can also write about their relationship with their kids. Which is what my second and third books in my series will be about.
Take care all,
Christine
Tuesday, November 20, 2007
Rah, Rah for Vamps
Hi all,
In the past twenty years or so, there’s been an explosion of vampires in film, in literature and on tv. However, the challenge for me, as a huge vampire fan, has been to find that which supports and promotes vampirism as being a positive thing. You know, the joke around my writing community is the phrase “you say vampire like it’s a bad thing”. But I digress…..
So, yeah, I read vampire stuff, I write vampire stuff. At my core, I am pro vampirism. And the important question I have to keep asking myself as a writer is “Why?”, that is, I have to keep challenging my beliefs and try to dig down to explore just why I think it is at least equal to being human. Which is what you should do in general. Every now and then, challenge yourself to think about why you believe certain things that you do.
This can be a problem because there has been so much written that is negative about vampirism. From the simple change in dietary habit to the forever damned loss of a soul idea, vampires seem to have it rough. So why do some vampires, particularly those in my universe, like being vampires?
For me, this is a complex question with a many faceted answer. I feel like I’m cheating in that I’m not going to write the answer to my question here. But really, I can’t. It isn’t simple and can’t be done in one page. Or even, in one book for that matter. I see the answer as being not only multi-layered but also being different from vampire to vampire. So, really, to write a response would actually be cheating here in that the ‘answer’ would not be the ‘real’/’true’ answer.
Now, on the flip side, I don’t think being a human is necessarily superior to vampirism. Well, some of my characters do but then, they are them and I am me. Right now, as a writer, I feel they’re both about equal.
I guess then, what I want to do with my universe is to explore the upside as well as the downside of vampirism. What makes vampires tick or not (in my universe, their hearts don’t beat). And exploring that issue is what makes writing fun for me. And hopefully, enjoyable for my fans to read.
They always say “Life is not a destination but a journey”. I think you can apply that idea to writing as well:)
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Up next: My thoughts on writing moral vampire characters.
In the past twenty years or so, there’s been an explosion of vampires in film, in literature and on tv. However, the challenge for me, as a huge vampire fan, has been to find that which supports and promotes vampirism as being a positive thing. You know, the joke around my writing community is the phrase “you say vampire like it’s a bad thing”. But I digress…..
So, yeah, I read vampire stuff, I write vampire stuff. At my core, I am pro vampirism. And the important question I have to keep asking myself as a writer is “Why?”, that is, I have to keep challenging my beliefs and try to dig down to explore just why I think it is at least equal to being human. Which is what you should do in general. Every now and then, challenge yourself to think about why you believe certain things that you do.
This can be a problem because there has been so much written that is negative about vampirism. From the simple change in dietary habit to the forever damned loss of a soul idea, vampires seem to have it rough. So why do some vampires, particularly those in my universe, like being vampires?
For me, this is a complex question with a many faceted answer. I feel like I’m cheating in that I’m not going to write the answer to my question here. But really, I can’t. It isn’t simple and can’t be done in one page. Or even, in one book for that matter. I see the answer as being not only multi-layered but also being different from vampire to vampire. So, really, to write a response would actually be cheating here in that the ‘answer’ would not be the ‘real’/’true’ answer.
Now, on the flip side, I don’t think being a human is necessarily superior to vampirism. Well, some of my characters do but then, they are them and I am me. Right now, as a writer, I feel they’re both about equal.
I guess then, what I want to do with my universe is to explore the upside as well as the downside of vampirism. What makes vampires tick or not (in my universe, their hearts don’t beat). And exploring that issue is what makes writing fun for me. And hopefully, enjoyable for my fans to read.
They always say “Life is not a destination but a journey”. I think you can apply that idea to writing as well:)
Take care all,
Chris
PS--Up next: My thoughts on writing moral vampire characters.
Sunday, November 4, 2007
Another ‘little’ overlooked aspect in writing: The Set
Hi all,
Awhile ago on this blog, I talked about characters and their traits, that is, to keep the character’s physical attributes consistent. Know whether they’re left handed (Phantom, Dracula) or right handed (Mina, Christine). Also, be careful of hair color, eye color and height of the characters (even the ‘minor’ ones) and make certain they stay the same throughout the course of not only your novel but also of your series of books, if you’re writing one (like I am at the present).
So now you have all the details of the characters. But you’re missing an important aspect. Scenery. Huh? You might be saying to yourself now. I’m not doing a play, I’m writing a novel. Well, yes, but that detail is as important for one as it is for the other. If you’re still confused, let me explain.
One of my favorite authors is a beautiful descriptor of scenery in her books. She describes everything. What the characters are wearing, what the furniture looks like. Even the patterns on the drapes hanging in one of the rooms. Wow. But yeah, she’s an amazing writer and that’s why this woman is one of my favorite authors. But I digress.
Describing scenery allows the reader to place the characters in his/her mind in a ‘space’ in their imagination. The more detailed the description, the more ‘real’ the scene may feel for the reader reading it. Now, one can go overboard with too many descriptions but my post was not about that so I won’t mention that aspect. However, I should just say that describing one’s scene should help set the tone for the story and enrich the action/emotion for the reader reading it. Too much description can remove the reader emotionally from the story. But yeah, description of the scene is a good thing.
Now, you’re done writing several scenes of the book, maybe even completed the first novel. And in the second novel, story, you have to revisit one of those scenes. The most important piece of advice that I can give my fellow writers in this situation is to make certain that the scenery and the furniture does not change. In other words, if there is a brass bed in the room, in the second book, unless the characters went shopping, the bed stays brass. And if there’s two chairs in the room in book one, there should be the same amount in the second book. Particularly, if you described the room or the furniture in detail. Again, at least IMO, it is important to stay consistent not only within the book but within one’s series.
So how does one keep track of all those ‘minor’ but very important details? A writing notebook. I have one where I keep a list of all my characters, short physical descriptions, short bios of each character and also, the rooms that I use for the scenes. In that way then, I can use my writing notebook as my ‘encyclopedia’ of information for my Dracula-Phantom universe and can ‘look up’ any detailed information I may have forgotten. I also suggest that you draw a picture of the setup of each ‘scene’ so that you can see the placement of the furniture in the room. That way, a character can stand with the chair on in right both in book one. And later then, in book five. Do you have to be so exact with the details? Well, no but IMO, it shows that you’re not only worrying about the ‘big’ picture of your novel/universe (characters, plot) but also, about the ‘little’ things in one’s book/universe. And in doing so, your longtime readers will appreciate you for it. And keep buying your books. Which is always a good thing:)
Until next time, take care all,
Chris
Awhile ago on this blog, I talked about characters and their traits, that is, to keep the character’s physical attributes consistent. Know whether they’re left handed (Phantom, Dracula) or right handed (Mina, Christine). Also, be careful of hair color, eye color and height of the characters (even the ‘minor’ ones) and make certain they stay the same throughout the course of not only your novel but also of your series of books, if you’re writing one (like I am at the present).
So now you have all the details of the characters. But you’re missing an important aspect. Scenery. Huh? You might be saying to yourself now. I’m not doing a play, I’m writing a novel. Well, yes, but that detail is as important for one as it is for the other. If you’re still confused, let me explain.
One of my favorite authors is a beautiful descriptor of scenery in her books. She describes everything. What the characters are wearing, what the furniture looks like. Even the patterns on the drapes hanging in one of the rooms. Wow. But yeah, she’s an amazing writer and that’s why this woman is one of my favorite authors. But I digress.
Describing scenery allows the reader to place the characters in his/her mind in a ‘space’ in their imagination. The more detailed the description, the more ‘real’ the scene may feel for the reader reading it. Now, one can go overboard with too many descriptions but my post was not about that so I won’t mention that aspect. However, I should just say that describing one’s scene should help set the tone for the story and enrich the action/emotion for the reader reading it. Too much description can remove the reader emotionally from the story. But yeah, description of the scene is a good thing.
Now, you’re done writing several scenes of the book, maybe even completed the first novel. And in the second novel, story, you have to revisit one of those scenes. The most important piece of advice that I can give my fellow writers in this situation is to make certain that the scenery and the furniture does not change. In other words, if there is a brass bed in the room, in the second book, unless the characters went shopping, the bed stays brass. And if there’s two chairs in the room in book one, there should be the same amount in the second book. Particularly, if you described the room or the furniture in detail. Again, at least IMO, it is important to stay consistent not only within the book but within one’s series.
So how does one keep track of all those ‘minor’ but very important details? A writing notebook. I have one where I keep a list of all my characters, short physical descriptions, short bios of each character and also, the rooms that I use for the scenes. In that way then, I can use my writing notebook as my ‘encyclopedia’ of information for my Dracula-Phantom universe and can ‘look up’ any detailed information I may have forgotten. I also suggest that you draw a picture of the setup of each ‘scene’ so that you can see the placement of the furniture in the room. That way, a character can stand with the chair on in right both in book one. And later then, in book five. Do you have to be so exact with the details? Well, no but IMO, it shows that you’re not only worrying about the ‘big’ picture of your novel/universe (characters, plot) but also, about the ‘little’ things in one’s book/universe. And in doing so, your longtime readers will appreciate you for it. And keep buying your books. Which is always a good thing:)
Until next time, take care all,
Chris
Saturday, October 20, 2007
Vampires at the Opera tie-in merchandise..........
Hi all,
After talking with some of you, there were some people interested in buying t-shirts and other merchandise with the "Vampires at the Opera" cover art. I really love the picture adorning the front of my novel. Thanks, Linda for making it look so striking.
If you want to buy the tie-in merchandise, please go here http://www.cafepress.com/vampiresatopera
We are selling through the website, cafepress.com.
With both vampires and Phantom, how could one resist? I'm buying my own t-shirt as well:)
Thanks again for your support!
Take care,
Chris
After talking with some of you, there were some people interested in buying t-shirts and other merchandise with the "Vampires at the Opera" cover art. I really love the picture adorning the front of my novel. Thanks, Linda for making it look so striking.
If you want to buy the tie-in merchandise, please go here http://www.cafepress.com/vampiresatopera
We are selling through the website, cafepress.com.
With both vampires and Phantom, how could one resist? I'm buying my own t-shirt as well:)
Thanks again for your support!
Take care,
Chris
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
Posts
